AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: Patrick

form_srcid: Patrick

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.161.108.158

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Patrick

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Patrick%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2006/05/17 07:27:03, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
I was (I think) just banned from UD.  On reading this thread I think this is unexceptional, but it's interesting to note that this was in:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1120

which is an attack on claims of quote mining, and extolls the accuracy of Creationist and ID quoting ability --- these are apparently people who never quote out of context or get a reference wrong.  Of course in the same article Barry can't spell "Eldredge".

I tried to assist subtley, and then more directly, and then was banned.  Such is life I guess.

However in banning me, Dave Scot decided to edit my post, substantially changing its import, effectively misquoting me.

And here's the UD comment policy:

Quote

Comment Integrity - Very rarely will I edit a comment. It either gets posted whole or flushed whole. On the rare occasions I edit one I’ll add a note about what and why. However, I often do append my comments to your comments because it’s far easier for me to do it that way in the editorial comment viewer. I try to do it at the end and clearly mark what I added.


What planet are these guys from?

Date: 2006/05/17 17:16:53, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (GCT @ May 17 2006,13:04)
 
Quote (Patrick Caldon @ May 17 2006,12:27)
However in banning me, Dave Scot decided to edit my post, substantially changing its import, effectively misquoting me.

Ironic, no?

Do you have the original, unedited post?  If so, feel free to post it here so we can all see what DT has done.

And, welcome.


Unfortunately no; I made the mistake of believeing their comments policy meant something.  To remind you this was done in a thread the point of which was "ID people are very careful and honest their use of quotation".  Indeed the phrase "punctillious rectitude" was thrown about a few times.

Anyway, the sense of it is:

 
Quote
Dave, you've not followed what I said, so I'll repeat it:

1) Barry stated that "the fossil record does not support the predictons of Darwin"

2) Darwin made many predictions concerning the fossil record.  Many.  Very gradual change was just one of those predictions.

3) With the exception of very gradual change, to my knowledge all of Darwin's predictions are correct.

4) Barry's statement is therefore untrue, and a misuse of Eldredge's original comment.

On other matters:

- There are marsupials alive in South America today.
- Giving a proper description of "Ring species" is beyond my competence I'm afraid.  Ridley gives a great many references in his textbook, so you should get a copy.  If you really doubt this you can do the fruit-fly experiments at home.
- jerry, your comment that neo-Darwinism is demolished is complete nonsense.  You have to ask the question: "are the rates of change observed in the fossil record consistent with the rates of genetic change observed in modern populations"
- Dave, your quote of Gould's above does not support your arguement.

If I can make a suggestion to you (particularly Dave and jerry); when you make statements like jerry’s above, and use quotations in the manner of Dave above, it becomes apparent that you’re either extraordinarily careless, quite daft, or (most likely) attacking something you don’t really understand --- this is really unfortunate since you are all quite clearly very earnest about this.  I'd suggest getting a good text, for instance Mark Ridley's "Evolution", and reading it carefully.  It was quite readable for a non-specialist like me.


The bold is what Dave preserved; he turns a reasoned argument and constructive suggestion into parting shot of someone flummoxed by superior argument.

Date: 2006/05/17 19:03:39, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (deadman_932 @ May 17 2006,23:53)
Patrick Caldon: Hey There! As another recent wayward exile from Dembski's barrel of baffled, bewildered and bamboozled baboons (writing under another name, of course) -- Have a seat, put your feet up and grab a beer. The show is funny as #### from a nice comfy chair.

Honestly, I find it very sad.  

There's so much effort, there's so much earnestness, there's so much enthusiasm that they have --- but they can't be bothered to work out what it is that they're trying to criticise.

Date: 2006/05/18 05:30:44, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (GCT @ May 18 2006,09:14)
Stick around and you will find that these guys are chock full of it.  They care not one whit for good debate or science.  They only care that what they know to be true (from reading it in some holy scripture) is accepted by all, no matter what the facts, science, and real world say about it.

I agree they're full of it - but why?

There's some kind of bizzare arrogance to think that you, having thought about a matter for half an hour or so, can work it all out better than someone who's been studying something all of their lives.  

My wife just now suggested it's a kind of Romanticism - that by the power of your passion about something you create truth (or Truth).  That we can liberate ourselves from the messy and petty facts about biology and by looking at `Information' and `Intelligence', which somehow represents a higher (sublime?) plane of being. You don't need to study to see this - you can, like a romantic, experience it.

I think the reason why ID can't come up with a satisfactory definition of information or intelligence is that they need their information to be apparent --- you, as the Common Man, must be able to look at an object and just see its information, feel its specified complexity - receive it unmediated from the world.  

And by this common man standard humans have more information than grasses, more information than apes - no need to stuff about with messy and unobvious ideas like Kolmogorov complexity or non-linear fitness functions with no simply observable global maximum or god forbid wet unpredictable biology itself, where we need an expert or some expertise to mediate between us and the world. This is the allergy to experiment --- if you can perceive the Truth, know it directly --- if you're the philosopher-king, if you already know it all, why do you need to stuff about with experiment?  It's just another mediator which will stop you perceiving, not help you perceive.

And it's just a petty fact of biology that they're trying to liberate themselves from - that they (and we) are quite thoroughly a part of nature - i.e. we're critters too.

I guess I find this sort of delusion pathetic.

Date: 2006/05/22 05:07:00, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
I'm coming to the conclusion that the UD train wreck is just amusing:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1141

Apparently Lucius Traveler from the ACLU doesn't want soldiers praying on US taxpayers time, and wants this "nipped in the bud", and USMC Colonel Jack Fessender's response is unprintable.

Now I'm not american, and I don't know the intricacies of US politics and constitutional rights, but I do know the US military hs for a long time employed military chaplains. So something is clearly fishy here.

And when we check the ACLU website, we discover:

Quote

Why does the ACLU object to federal employees bowing their heads?
The ACLU has no knowledge about the photograph of Marines praying that has circulated on the Internet. The ACLU has also never had a spokesperson -- quoted by news organizations as "Lucius Traveler" -- by this name.


Similarly the USMC deny all knowledge of a Colonel Jack Fessender.

Now it took dopey old me all of about 15 seconds to work this out.  The Issac Newton of Information Theory seems to be still struggling with it however.

EDIT: source http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/aclu-marines.htm

Date: 2006/05/22 06:29:16, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 22 2006,11:18)

Quote (dhogaza @ May 22 2006,11:10)
It's DaveTard, not The Wayne Newton of Information Theory, that posted that story.  Though Dembski did respond with a "right on!" comment.


Oopsy!  I've maligned TINoIT unfairly.

Quote

He may be active today, but at 9:15am PST the anti-ACLU urban legend is still there, with both non-Dembski comments still pointing out it's bogus. I think Dumbo and his man are both asleep at the wheel this morning...


I'm really curious to see ID in action right now ...

Date: 2006/05/22 08:38:49, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (Colin @ May 22 2006,13:27)
In other words, "It doesn't matter that the post is totally factually inaccurate, nor that it attacks the ACLU for something that they have not, in fact, done.  This post is just about creating the impression that the ACLU has done something wrong."

For a group so outwardly obsessed with public morality, creationists never cease to amaze me with their compulsive disregard for basic honesty.

From BarryA a week ago:

Quote

... any quotation must be accompanied by an accurate citation to the quotation’s source, and in my experience ID proponents and creationist are assiduous in this respect..

Date: 2006/05/22 23:09:33, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (Bob O'H @ May 23 2006,00:31)
Quote
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. –Mahatma Gandhi

Am I the only one wondering if things are running backwards in ID-world?

Bob

What; first they fight you, then they laugh at you, then they ignore you, then you loose?

Date: 2006/09/21 19:18:56, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
And now the robots.txt is an empty file ...

Date: 2006/09/21 19:45:32, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
It would be truly remarkable if this Google-deletion were the result of some random error, particularly given that all the participants have inferred that this was the result of some (presumably designed) act.

Date: 2006/09/21 19:49:57, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Sep. 21 2006,16:39)
Wesley (to be fair, PZ also jumped to conclusions overly fast with respect to UD not being on Google),

To be fairer, he (Meyers) described this as "specuation".

Date: 2007/05/17 23:14:39, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
And here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-things

it's implied that the positioning of the Polaris has something to do with Intelligent Design.

I live in the Southern Hemisphere, and have no pole star. Maybe the Intelligent Designer only designed the north.

Date: 2007/05/21 02:09:31, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
D O'L makes a startling discovery:

Quote

Life forms, even simple ones, are not like machines.


Hopefully the apologetics of "it looks like a machine, so it must be designed" can now go away.

However:
Quote

The fly’s autonomy (or spontaneity, as the researchers called it) is an aspect of life, as opposed to mechanism, that we do not yet understand. I am sure it is understandable in principle, but continued adherence to materialism makes it unlikely that we will understand any time soon.


Translation: Pass me the cosmic spakfilla.

Date: 2007/06/17 06:35:37, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (stevestory @ June 15 2007,16:16)
Couldn't have said it better myself. Funny thing is, if you watch them and us for a few months, their lies and fake jargon and vicious moderation, we still come out ahead.

And even the AtBC jokes are much better, and the dodgy photoshopping of higher quality.

You even attract a better (or at least more honest) class of nutty creationist.

Date: 2007/06/22 06:19:53, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (hooligans @ June 21 2007,15:01)
I took a few moments to catalogue both the type and quantity of posts made at UD since April 2007. ...

ID is Persecuted = 33
Atricles Unwittingly Supporting ID = 17
Global Warming Isn't Happening = 15
Reviews of Popular Books about ID (not peer-reviewed) = 15
Stupid Articles by Denyse = 12
Evolution is Wrong, So ID is Right = 12
Articles That Don't Make Any Sense (not by Denyse) = 9
Davescot Pontificating About Something He Doesn't Understand = 8
Street Theatre = 7
Complaints/Putdowns about Dover or Jones = 5
Evolution is Evil = 5
Teach the Controversy = 5
Jeolousy/Hatred of Dawkins = 4
New Research ID is Thinking About Doing Sometime = 2
ID Supporting Pleasurianism = 1
New Research by ID Scientists = 0

Very well done.  That looks like a lot of work (and pain!) and it tells the story well.

Date: 2007/06/22 06:22:21, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 22 2007,01:38)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....zealots

 
Quote
22 June 2007
Senators Clinton and Boxer learn from Darwin zealots
DaveScot
In an interesting bit of news Senator Inohofe stated he overheard Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) saying they wanted to stifle conservative talk radio via legislation. Now where have we seen this tactic before - when people want to criticize something and you can’t counter it with facts you turn instead to legal chicanery to silence their criticism. ....


Erm, at Uncommon Descent, with you moderating, Dave.

For a guy who berates folks for fact-checking, do you think "some republitard says he overheard a conversation" meets your criteria?


BAD, BAD TARD.

It's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling stories.

Date: 2007/06/22 07:58:58, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (skeptic @ June 21 2007,00:39)
I think I'm confusing you by what I'm asking.  lets take the three mechanisms you've named.  Under what conditions will one operate over the others?  How much variation can we get from RM as opposed to NM?  This is what I'm getting at.  We're not replacing one with the others we're just catagorizing which is applicable where.

Looking at the emergence of traits, in many instances RM (as described) is all that would be required.  Can it describe speciation?  If not, what mechanism can and is there any objective way to test this?  And then based upon the two mechanisms as a continuum at what point between single traits and speciation does one end and the other take over?  Complicating matters further, throw the third mechanism in and then what do we get?

These are the kind of questions that immediately pop into my head.

You'd do well to read a book.  

A friend one recommended to me Mark Ridley's "Evolution", and it's very good on describing this sort of thing - for instance he has a chapter (chapter 7) which goes into great detail on the very questions you're asking, describes the various competing theories in their historical context, cites a number of lab and field experiments which attempt to get to the bottom of the difference between drift and selection.

Date: 2007/06/24 12:24:49, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,11:55)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 24 2007,11:20)
FTK, simple question. Do you agree with
 
Quote
If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend in with variations of cats.


y/n

?

Would you mind posting the link to that quote? I believe what he's saying is that if macroevolution has occurred, we might see some of these transitions still slowly occuring over time.  We never witness macro changes - can't even make them happen.  

The cat/dog is an "example".  

If you've read all Brown's work, it's obvious that he knows enough about biology to realize that a cat and a dog cannot breed and create a cat/dog "blend", if that is what you are implying.

He's trying to give an "example" of how things would have occured and what we should still be seeing if macroev. was "factual".

It's the first line here:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences13.html

The problem is that it's not true.  The statement of evolutionary theory is that cats and dogs (and every other critter) have a common ancestor.  That critter will not have been "half dog/half cat".

Define "macro change".  How is a "macro change" different from a great many "micro-changes" one after the other?

Date: 2007/06/28 08:45:45, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (Ftk @ June 28 2007,08:00)
The problem is, Oldman, ...

FTK, you'd do really well to get a high-school or elementary college level biology text and read it thoroughly, cover to cover, and really study this stuff hard.

These guys are not making it up, and more to the point it's actually really hard work to extract chromosomes from chimps, humans and gorillas and line them all up;  if you include all the precursor work it is literally decades upon decades of work of hundreds upon hundreds of people which were required to produce that little diagram that oldman shows you there.

Actually getting real information out of the physical world is really hard.  Don't write it off unless you understand the kind of monstrous effort that goes in.

Date: 2007/07/11 21:53:11, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Here's the last post that didn't make it:

Quote

scordova, DaveScot,
Your tone of victory would be a lot more appropriate if you actually addressed any of JAMs points. For instance the following challenge:

   Show some courage and do the math. 10 CQR sporozoites (fitness 0.86) and 10 CQS sporozoites (fitness 1) infect an untreated human. Three weeks later, what is the typical number of merozoites in the blood and what is the calculated ratio of CQR to CQS merozoites?

is fatal to BeheŹ˛s case. As I sit down and play with the maths here, itŹ˛s plain that JAM has a point. Indeed the very rapidity of reproduction in this case will drive the CQR population down to negligible levels w.r.t. the CQS population, so virtually sod all gametocytes make it to a mosquito vector, and then in the mosquito itself there will be no CQ (unless weŹ˛ve magically found a way of making the mosquitoes themselves to take anti-malarials). This is exactly the point which White makes in the quoted paragraph in post #56.

You would both do well to answer him on this point, since this concretely shows the difference between the two anti-malarials that youŹ˛re wondering about in these latter posts.

DaveScot, as an aside with your calculation, I think youŹ˛ve neglected that if a nucleotide mutates into itself thatŹ˛s no mutation at all, i.e. A -> A is not a mutation by definition.


It's a real shame actually, I read JAM's posts carefully and I learned quite a bit; getting to grips with this kind of stuff almost makes me regret being a CS major.

And if any of the UD crowd ever check this site out, I daresay this comment was one of the more useful ones, albeit that the DI might need to do some more fundraising:

Quote

I’d hardly describe my mutterings as overwhelming opposition, but I agree that it does seem a great shame that Michael Behe did not take the opportunity to do some experiments and properly characterize the development of CQR in its myriad forms. Numbers of people have done in-vitro work on this, the protocols seem reasonably well understood, what’s needed now is a lot of grunt work to actually nail down what the probabilities of various sequences of mutation are.

If it happened to contribute something to the ID debate, all for the good, but a precise description of the probabilities of CQR would almost certainly be invaluable in the construction of anti-malarial strategies, and could quite possibly save many hundreds of thousands of lives.

This would surely be an excellent piece of work for the Discovery Institute to fund, I imagine they could fund a lab, a few researchers and a few graduate students for the several years the work would take out of their budget, maybe a few million a year? And if indeed the evidence (in this particular regard) did not end up showing the truth of ID, at least they would have the consolation that they had benefited the lot of humanity.

Date: 2007/07/12 08:20:18, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Do these guys even read their own stuff?

Quote

Earlier, Bill pointed out the apparent convergence of features between Jerry Coyne and Herman Munster here. I think I have also discovered yet another convergence, one between Jerry Coyne and toast.


and below from tribune7:

Quote

I went over to Talk Reason.
...
Talk with “reason” can’t be done with ad hominem

Date: 2007/07/14 10:18:00, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
I just wasted 10 minutes of my life on this evolutionary simulation "game":

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....ew-game

I want it back.  

I *think* his simulation is based on the idea that each critter has exactly 6 base pairs in its genome and there is a population of 1 at any time, with a probability of 5*10^-6 of a point mutation in any generation (when one possible mutation is substituting a nucleotide for itself).  I have to agree with the author of the program, that evolution is quite unlikely under this particular set of assumptions.

I'll put 10 to 1 odds that no comment appears on UD (for longer than 24 hours) saying the assumptions are stuffed.

The "game" comes with a commentary.  For instance, when is a mutation not a mutation?  

 
Quote

A single point mutation event that hits a codon can only result in 12 possible outcomes. Each nucleotide in the codon can be substituted by one of the 4 nucleotides. If a point mutation event hits a nucleotide, one of the 4 possible substitutions is the same as the original nucleotide. This means there is only a 75% chance that a change will occur for the nucleotide.


And:

 
Quote

Professor Huxley says:
Marx - are you still peeved because Darwin would not let you dedicate Das Kapital to him?
Karl Marx says:
Not any more. We Communists killed more people that the Scientific Racists who turned Darwin's theory into practical politics. SO WE WON!!!

Date: 2007/07/14 23:11:38, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-128036

Quote

6

UrbanMysticDee

07/14/2007

8:47 pm

There’s nothing to do but push one button over and over and I have no idea what all the charts are for. There should be some sound effects or something to make the game more interesting, or maybe you should just press the mutation button once and it runs the whole simulation and tells you the outcome right away. Or instead of having captions appear under the pictures there should be impersonated voices.


I can't tell if this guy is being sarcastic or not.

Date: 2007/07/22 23:20:42, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Our simulated organism with 2 codons and an eternal population of 1 who reproduces once a year struggles for survival:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....olution

http://www.mutationworks.com/rdmc/explainmath.cfm

Again we have this recurring idea in ID biology, that a point mutation of a nucleotide into itself is still a mutation.  

But I'd better not try to reverse-engineer this.  They'll sic some patent lawyers onto me:

Quote

The algorithms and user interface utilized in this site are copyright with patents being applied for - with the exception of Richard Dawkins' simulation around the phrase "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL". The following is a description of the logic used to manipulate the player's two codons. It should enable anybody to audit the outputs of the player's simulation. It should not be used to reverse-engineer this site.


(Emphasis added.) And I wonder, are they going to use the EF to work out whether I've reverse engineered the site?

Date: 2007/07/23 01:14:41, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (VMartin @ July 22 2007,23:58)
I put those examples (together with mimicry) only to show that darwinismus is unable to explain them. That's all.

For mimicry, I'd suggest chapter 8 of Ridley's Evolution book.  Its an accessible undergraduate text, and describes the evolution of mimicry in great detail as an example of multi-locus population genetics.

Why not buy the book, read through it, and then work through the exercises at the back of the chapter?

Date: 2007/07/23 23:34:41, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....-128884

Quote

Trying to find a definition of fitness is like trying to grab hold of jello.


Actually, it's about as hard as shelling out a few dollars for a textbook on the subject and reading it:

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Fitness.asp

Quote

The fitness of a genotype measures its relative ability to reproduce itself, compared to other genotypes.

Fitness shows to what extent a genotype is favored by natural selection. Fitness values are between 0 and 1. The fittest individual has a fitness of 1, and the fitness of the other members of the population can be expressed as 1 - s, where s is the selection coefficient.

The fitnesses of different genotypes are among the most important variables - perhaps the most important variables - in the theory of evolution. They determine, to a large extent, which genotypes we can expect to see in the world today.

There are three methods for measuring fitness:

• Measure the relative survival of the genotypes within a generation. Kettlewell's mark-recapture experiment with the peppered moth is an example.

• Measure changes in gene frequencies between generations. We then substitute the measurements into the formula that expresses fitness in terms of gene frequencies in successive generations.

• Measure deviations from the Hardy- Weinberg ratios - this is used in estimating fitness in the case of sickle cell anemia.

A measure of mean fitness is commonly applied in population genetics.

The idea of a fitness landscape is particularly useful for thinking about complex genetic systems.

Date: 2007/07/25 09:22:20, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote

Emperical science cannot comment upon anything except that which can be observed under controlled conditions - repeatedly. Singular events are out of bounds.


So observation-based methods can't comment on one-off events like the formation of the moon, or the continents?

But frankly guys, this one's a screwball too.  To wit:
Quote

Freon is far heavier than air - therefore it cannot rise into the atmosphere and destroy ozone. Instead it falls to the ground where it is broken apart by microbes in the soil. The ozone hole has nothing to do with humans, it has come and gone for centuries, and will continue as long as the Earth has an atmosphere.  


A volume of nitrogen gas is lighter than oxygen gas at the same temperature and pressure, Red, but for some reason we're not surrounded by oxygen, with all the nitrogen a kilometre or so up.  Thermodynamics has a lot to do with this.

Maybe you need to have a little think about thermodynamics.  Think hard about how heat is moving from a cold place to a hot place when evolution happens via material mechanisms, since this it is this movement of heat that the second law forbids.

Date: 2007/07/25 09:42:56, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
And now for the big question in ID:

I can forgive a bunch of electrical engineers and programmers for having no clue about biology (I'm half in that boat myself) but why can't they at least run a reliable webserver?

Date: 2007/07/25 13:42:13, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
PaV again:

Quote

This fluid notion of what fitness is makes it an almost useless concept.


You'd think a bunch of electrical engineers would have at least heard of the idea of "a collection of functions".

And when we get to fluid notions, the whole CSI thing leaps into my mind in a rather dramatic fashion ...

Date: 2007/07/25 14:28:47, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (Louis @ July 25 2007,12:35)
I can see what I think is very likely to be the case, however I HOPE (fervently and deeply) that I am going to be proven wrong. I actually WANT to be wrong about this, I want our new chum to be an open minded person who is merely misinformed and for whom accurate information will be something of a mind opening experience.

I dunno.  The first thing we all have to learn is that our knowledge is limited, it's hard work, and unless we apply ourselves for a good few months studying something hard pushing past our "common sense" and simple intuitions we won't get anywhere.

The problem is that there's hard work involved, and the first step is saying "sod it, I don't know it all, but these guys who everyone else thinks are smart might be onto something".  And then you have to fight through the technical difficulty of the concepts themselves, and (generally) discover yourself making mistake after mistake before you get it right.

The one common trait I've noticed in creationists (from ID to YEC) is hubris, a fundamental inability to acknowledge even the most trivial of mistakes. Hubris is antithetical to learning.

Date: 2007/07/25 15:09:18, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote

1

William Dembski

07/25/2007

10:08 am

13 Steps to Theocracy has recently changed names to Christians for World Domination. Our sister organization is Buddhists for Violence.


I thought that was "Wedgies for Christ".

Date: 2007/07/25 15:54:42, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (VMartin @ July 25 2007,15:40)
The coloration of mushroom has been studied. We discussed at this thread an scientific article that concluded coloration of mushrooms have no connection with poisonous quality of mushrooms. It is one of the basic claim of neodarwinism that  coloration signals that species is unpalatable or poisonous. Obviously this is not the case of mushrooms.

Heh?  I've only read a couple of textbooks on modern evolutionary theory and population genetics, but each of them went into long descriptions of how mimicry and similar false signals do evolve.

Suppose there is a bird who has learned to avoid butterflies having a specific pattern.  There is then a selective advantage to looking like the poisonous butterfly.  This has been studied quite a lot.

I would hazard to guess that something similar could operate in mushrooms.

Date: 2007/07/27 01:49:42, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (Bob O'H @ July 27 2007,00:42)
The emergency services and their defribrilators will be with you in a moment.

No Bob, it's still tard:

Quote

What I eventually learned, however, was that this was not how programs were written. When I did a Poke and got the screen to 80 columns, I had not “programmed” anything. I had merely found an existing switch that had already been programmed by someone else. What’s more, I found out that no combination of Pokes would bring me a step at a time towards a program. A program must be planned (in fact, most of the steps leading to a functional program would be catastrophic individually - it is only when several are in place all at the same time does it work at all).


He's confusing a "scientist trying to work out how life works" with "life".

Date: 2007/07/27 07:56:21, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....-129412

Quote

I’m confident the rest of us will understand that there is beauty in complexity (albeit not fitness) and there is a point to our existence beyond survival of the species.


Couldn't agree more.

Date: 2007/07/27 12:52:01, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ July 27 2007,12:41)
a telic entity with an inordinate fondness for Game Theory

This one just really cracked me up

Date: 2007/07/28 02:19:37, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (VMartin @ July 28 2007,01:54)
See swans. Why are they white?

Swans are black where I'm from.  There's a pair of them (with grey-black cygnets) about a mile from where I'm typing now.  Very cute.  The cygnets follow momma swan around and poppa swan chases away all the ducks when people come to feed them.

So why are swans white or black but nothing inbetween?  Well some swans are both white and black.  These are in South America somewhere if I recall.  

So why are some swans white, other swans black and some swans a combination of both black and white?

Dunno.  But I hardly see that the existence of some white swans, some black swans, and some white and black swans destroys the theory of evolution.  It would probably be an interesting project to get to the bottom of.  At the same time it would be interesting to know why black swans have grey cygnets.

Date: 2007/07/28 02:23:24, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (VMartin @ July 28 2007,01:54)
I've put mushrooms as an example where coloration cannot be explained via ToE. I claim that it is only the tip of the iceberg. 90% of coloration in animal kingdom is unexpleinable by ToE.

Forgot to add:  unexplained =/= unexpleinable.  You have to do a lot to show that something is impossible on some kind of theoretical grounds.

Date: 2007/07/28 03:32:08, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (VMartin @ July 28 2007,02:33)
Medieval University:

- Why are swans white?
- Because God determined so.

Modern University, 21st century:
 
- Why are swans white?
- Because it was determined by natural selection.

I'm not sure you're listening VMartin.  Not all swans are white.  Repeating, not all swans are white.  There are black ones:



In any event I think the modern university would more likely answer: "Dunno, but that sounds like an interesting project for a graduate student.  Let's see if we can get some funding from somewhere."

Given that all variation which has been thoroughly examined to date has been the result of natural evolutionary processes (of which natural selection is one) it would be a bit of a turn up for the books if swans were white (and black, and various other colors) because God did it.

More to the point, let's suppose after several years of hard labor we had some explanation of why swans are white, black, and various other colors, as we now do for lots of other organisms.  You would just pipe up with:  "Why are crimson rosellas red?".  Then another several years of labor.  Then "Why are galahs pink?".  "Why are sulphur-crested cockatoos white?" and so on.

If you're really that worried about bird coloration, make a bequest to a university to study it.

Date: 2007/07/28 05:48:11, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (VMartin @ July 28 2007,04:11)
I have discussed swans already elsewhere. Folks there noticed that swans are also black in Australia. But I would say it plays more in my cards than it supports neodarwinistic veiw. Because if the same species is white or black it is hardly explainable by natural or sexual selection. It is really very curious - (speaking about Australian/Tasmanian/NZ versus Europian/American fauna)  that natural selection could lead to striking  similarity of placental and marsupial wolf (convergence). The same natural selection would have led in both areas to different and almost opposite coloration of swans.

VMartin,

European grey wolves are grey (hence the "grey" in the name).  Thylacines (tasmanian tigers) were brown with stripes (hence the "tiger").

Trust me, having been to been to both Europe and Australia that the climates, flora and fauna, and geography are quite different in both regions.  For instance, it snows in a goodly portion of the white swan's European range, which was covered in glaciers 10,000 years ago.  It does not snow in much of Australia, and we don't have glaciers.

I'll repeat, I have no idea why they have the colors they do; that does not imply "god did it".   It's a several year research project to work out why white swans are white. If you want to fund the study I'm sure I can find someone to do it for you.

Date: 2007/07/28 12:53:21, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (VMartin @ July 28 2007,08:40)
I would say that black and white swans also inhabit the same types of habitat

Bollocks.

Date: 2007/07/28 13:31:24, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (VMartin @ July 28 2007,13:27)
I have as much evidence as darwinists have for proving than man arouse via random mutation from ancient fish.

Half a zillion fossils and the genome of every organism ever sequenced collectively sing: bollocks.

Date: 2007/07/29 02:33:00, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (VMartin @ July 28 2007,13:53)
Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 28 2007,12:53)
 
Quote (VMartin @ July 28 2007,08:40)
I would say that black and white swans also inhabit the same types of habitat

Bollocks.


Patrick, why didn't you quote my previous sentence either? I quoted there that striking similarity of stripes on tasmanian wolf and african zebra druiker is to be explained via "similar types of habitat".  Is it also "bollocks" or what? But this time it would be darwinain "bollocks".

I have no idea why or indeed if the stripes on these various critters are similar.  Again, it's a multi-year study to get on top of this.  And as soon as a reasonable explanation is found, you'll pipe up with "but why do yellow-bellied gliders have a yellow belly?"; and it's another umpteen years of study to work out if there is some selective advantage or if its a founder effect somewhere or something of that nature.

So I would love to tell you if this is bollocks but I have no idea; on the other hand I know with a very good degree of certainty that the geography (and biogeography) of Europe and Australia are different.  

Do you have some difficulty with the statement: "There are some things we (as humans) do not know because we have never invested the resources to find out"?

We have established that black swans exist.  At least that's good going.

Now we have to get to "the climate in Australia is different to the climate in Europe."

Date: 2007/07/29 09:12:26, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 29 2007,06:50)
Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 28 2007,12:53)
Quote (VMartin @ July 28 2007,08:40)
I would say that black and white swans also inhabit the same types of habitat

Bollocks.

Actually, I've found a spot in Wales where Black and white swans live together.


But again, this is one place in one country, so it doesn't exactly show anything.

Do they have black swans in Wales?  Colour me astonished - I thought they were exclusively Antipodean.

Date: 2007/07/31 00:52:00, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-129970

Quote

These examples highlight that basic rules which we take for granted cannot apply in physically existing infinites. Either we must rewrite basic arithmetic rules (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and comparison) or such infinities do not exist.


I think the ID movement is about to rediscover ordinality and cardinality ...

... but with a unique twist:
Quote

As a sidelight to this, I think, logically, all infinities of math should ultimately reside in “God”. To clarify this, It seems to me in battling materialists, Theists have always taken away the materialists source for infinities in defeating their particular theories, with the result being that the resultant need for an infinity is always fullfilled by God. Thus mathematically speaking, it seems simple to me that all problems encountered in math with infinities will only be “truthfully” satisfied when alluding to God as the source of the needed infinity in the math problem.

Date: 2007/07/31 11:06:09, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 31 2007,10:47)
You darwinist materialist from ATBC miss the point.  Those bridges were DESIGNED.  Gahhh.

Damn straight:

http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe....plexity

 
Quote

To refute the Darwinists, one possible argument we could use is that nature never builds complexity by taking things away - it only builds complexity through the adding of parts. When a Darwinist uses the natural bridge argument, we could perhaps claim that natural bridges are actually FORMED by some sort of depositional activity. I don't know enough about natural bridges to say one way or the other, but it's possible that ID still has an explanatory role to play here, since the deposit of a natural bridge would seem to be an exceedingly rare event.

Date: 2007/08/01 02:48:48, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (bystander @ July 31 2007,18:07)
He's and electrical engineer and thinks that reactive power is not real. OMG. How did he ever pass his exams. How did he handle field theory?

Michael

They're a bunch of computer types and they can't get a web server to stay up for more than five minutes at a time.

Date: 2007/08/03 02:52:09, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 03 2007,01:49)
I am afraid the discussion is over. We hit a point where you accepted probably a fact that darwinism is unable to explain many coloration of living organisms ...

Hi VMartin,

Remember where I was talking about limited resources?  What bit of that is unclear?

That is there is a difference between not being able to do something, and not having done something (on account of lack of resources, or interest).  

Are you clear on the fact that these two things are different?

Date: 2007/08/03 03:24:48, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 03 2007,03:04)
Patrick,

I am aware of it.

Good.  Because that is a very important distinction.

Now can you see the difference between the following statements:

"Evolutionary biology cannot tell us why there are both black and white swans, because of a fundamental inadequacy in the theory",

and,

"Evolutionary biology has not told us why there are both black and white swans, because no-one has looked at this issue hard (on account of lack of time/resources/gullible graduate students)"

I shall look at your link when I get some free time.  A bit busy just now I'm afraid.

Date: 2007/08/03 07:04:50, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
RB:

My goodness.

Date: 2007/08/03 10:03:28, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 03 2007,08:47)
Alan Fox
   
Quote

For a discussion to be over, it would have first of all to have taken place.


It was not my fault. I have tried to point out many cases of coloration where (neo)darwinistic oversimplifications are not plausible explanation of development of it.
Folks here denigrated me.

Hi VMartin,

Going back a bit, you stated that the current coloration of swans was implausible via natural evolutionary means.

You never gave any reasons why it is implausible.

Why is it (the color of swans that is) implausible?

If you could address the possibility of drift/founder effects when you answer that would be dandy.

Date: 2007/08/06 00:03:43, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,22:36)
I have studied multiple disciplines, yes.  I am a master of none, and I am weakest in Geology.  My primary science is physics.

Brilliant.  I prefer to talk to your strengths.

You state this on your blog.  Presumably your argument is based on statistical mechanics or thermodynamics or the like:

Quote

What has been shown, is that the probabilities of the number of mutations occuring in a species which would be necessary to create another species are astronomically high. Only single celled organisms, viruses (and the like), and a few insects produce the numbers necessary to even come close to making the odds closer to possible - and they still can't do it.


1) What is the number of mutations required to make a new species?  How do you derive this number?

2) How many genes have mutations in a typical generation of eukarya?

Date: 2007/08/06 23:19:00, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
RedDot,

You've now said both this:

Quote

What has been shown, is that the probabilities of the number of mutations occuring in a species which would be necessary to create another species are astronomically high.


and this:

Quote

As far as the number of mutations required for speciation, I believe this is still being debated, as is the exact mechanism.


To my eye, if you presuppose that mutations are required for speciation (which I'm not sure why you'd do), then knowing the number of mutations required is of critical importance to calculating the probability of speciation.

I have the sneaking suspicion that you've been making this up as you go along.  Particularly the "What has been shown" bit.  Who showed it?  When?

Date: 2007/08/09 00:24:55, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 08 2007,21:47)
Quote (Patrick Caldon @ Aug. 06 2007,00:03)
1) What is the number of mutations required to make a new species?  How do you derive this number?

2) How many genes have mutations in a typical generation of eukarya?

1) Actually, that is one question YEC's, IDers, and other anti-evolutionists keep looking to you evolutionists to answer.  But the number (whatever it's theoretical value) is bound to have a non-trivial  range depending on how you define the term "species" (there are several definitions which are floating about); whether the organism in question is a Eukaryote, Prokarote, or whatever; how complex the species is; and a whole host of other factors.

You've ignored my subsequent question about this number being needed for your probability calculation if speciation is wildly improbable.  You said:

Quote

What has been shown, is that the probabilities of the number of mutations occuring in a species which would be necessary to create another species are astronomically high.


If you recall I asked "Who showed this? When?".  The number of mutations required to make a new species is surely a vital part of this calculation.  Given that it "has been shown", you must have some idea about who showed it and when.

Unless you're just making this all up as you go along.

Date: 2007/08/09 01:13:10, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 08 2007,23:14)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 06 2007,14:19)
Awwww... no answers about koalas getting from Turkey to Australia?  :(

Nor do I have answers to how Sloths got to Central America or how Noah survived the "fruit fly infastation" or how the fig wasp survived or...

But doesn't it strike you as a odd co-incidence that there are oodles of complex marsupial fossils in Australia/PNG, and in South America and not much of note elsewhere ...

All of these critters (many with a natural range in the kilometres) then upped and walked to Anatolia ...

Having got there, all requiring special diets only available 10,000 kms away, they then go boating for a year ...

Their less lucky cousins all drown and get hydraulically sorted ...

And then having enjoyed a spot of yachting in Turkey, they take the multi-year trek back home without food ...

Except for all the South American ones, where only a few opossums made it.  And by bizarre co-incidence, all the South American marsupials (except the opossums, which just happen to be the marsupials which make it back to South America) got hydraulically sorted significantly  *lower* than the Australian marsupials.  About 30 million years lower, according to materialistic science.  Which is also about the same time the evil materialists say that North and South America got joined.

Given your fondness for probability calculations, maybe you should try calculating the probability of that.

Date: 2007/08/09 05:52:44, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 09 2007,04:24)
that page is now a 404 error!
funny thing is that if you search UD using the internal search feature the thread appears, but click on the link and it's gone.

Internal Search

Google Cache of the page

We're having a UD timewarp to 3 1/2 weeks ago.  At the moment it reads that the most recent entry was on the 15th of July.

Maybe they've tried to ban most of the last month.

One hopes they get their web server back up soon.

Date: 2007/08/10 07:58:06, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote

“The argument for a gradualistic transition from one species to another is fairly suspect ”

then step up to the plate and show us why ID is mistaken here. No one ever has on this site or any other site we have read so you can be the first one.


I'd love to if I hadn't been banned ...

Date: 2007/08/10 08:06:08, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
And I thought that with their reset I might have been unbanned.  Not to be.

Date: 2007/08/11 21:43:15, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 11 2007,08:43)
So, most of the proteins under 100aa are signal proteins or part of anabolic/catabolic processes.  Or, they are simply pieces of larger proteins.  My point is that none of the subset of short-proteins, by themselves, allow life to exist, nor could they create life.  References to "proto-proteins" or other such nonsense will not help in abiogenesis.  The majority of proteins in an organism are far larger, and the larger a protein is, the harder it will be to explain its random generation.

Red, you seem to have missed this bit from Louis' post:
Quote

So do you mean synthesis as in the careful construction of molecules or synthesis in the sense of "mix it together in a big bucket and out it pops"? If you are using the term in the latter sense to refer to abiogenesis then you're off your chump again I'm afraid. As I said earlier, no one claims that abiogenesis is anything like a big bucket of chemicals out of which some fantastically improbable and complex object pops as if by magic. This is your own strawman, a confection derived solely from your own personal ignorance.


Also you seem to have missed the bit (three times now!) where I asked who (and when) showed this:

Quote

What has been shown, is that the probabilities of the number of mutations occuring in a species which would be necessary to create another species are astronomically high.


And how do you justify this statement without knowing how many mutations are needed for speciation?

Date: 2007/08/14 05:30:59, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 14 2007,03:53)
So David, sweetie, please explain to me how I as an atheist hate your fictional deity Yaweh (or is it Elohim? Or both? Or neither?) but I don't hate other fictional deities like Zeus or Tiamat or Odin (to name but three). Be careful to define "hate" most clearly.

I think I might try to channel my Calvinist past for a bit ...

The idea is that you and everyone starts out in a state of Total Depravity. (hence T in TULIP).  This is what Jesus meant when he said "everyone in Sin is enslaved to Sin", and there's another passage about non-believers "loving the darkness rather than loving the light"; as a non-believer you are wedded to a sinful nature and every deed that you do is tainted by corrupt intent.

For instance, myself as a (now) non-believer, in performing this explanation of Total Depravity to you will have in some way have been performing a sinful act by so doing, because as a non-believer my every action is corrupted by sin.  I love the darkness and not the light, and I write this to you out of my love of the darkness rather than the light.  By just hanging around here and typing, I am sinning. By sitting there and reading this, your (atheistic) action of reading is tainted by corruption and arises out of non-Godly motives, so you are sinning.  Just by learning about Total Depravity, you are in fact engaging in a rebellion against God.  Heddle on the other hand is (presumably) redeemed by Grace, so his action of sitting there and reading this comes from the "light, not the darkness", so he's not sinning right now.

I'm not sure if you sin against God just by *existing* and being an atheist, but pretty much every action you do consciously as an atheist is an act of sinning/rebellion against God. (With one important exception, getting saved, which you cannot do but which God does for you.)  Such is the nature of atheism.

And to sin is to hate God.

David will no doubt correct me, but it's not a big stretch to say that being alive and being an atheist is (according to Reformed thought) an act of hatred towards God.

So stop breathing Louis.  Your continued intentional respiration is an act of hatred towards God.

edit -- sorry, david, I hoped to gazump you
edit2 - not corruption, depravity

Date: 2007/08/14 06:45:29, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 14 2007,06:21)
How far can one take this before it becomes too absurd for rational people to even discuss further?

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.  --- I Corinthians 13:11

We can only hope.

Date: 2007/08/14 09:57:45, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (heddle @ Aug. 14 2007,09:31)
Reciprocating Bill,

No, you are effectively insisting that hate has one meaning: a seething, jaw-clenched, emotional rage. But even in common usage we can hate things that we are not overly emotional about. When people find out one of my interests, they often tell me that they hate NASCAR. Do they think about it much, know much about it, or are deeply emotional about it? Probably no, no, and no. Many such examples exist. I love the Rolling Stones. I hate the Beatles. I am emotional about neither. So the common usage does not demand strong emotions—although it obviously doesn’t preclude it. As I wrote before, the synonym antipathy is probably the closest feeling.

hang on heddle,

In the Reformed dogma, every act committed by someone not given grace is *Totally Depraved*.  

The word *totally* is not there by happenstance.  It's a key point in the whole business.

Every action performed by someone without the Grace of God suffers the patina of sin, in that it does not have an intention that comes from God.

To sin is to rebel against God, it is to hate God.  

Therefore every action by a non-believer carries this stain of hatred of God.

To wit:
"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple."  Luke somewhere.

"Hate" here does not mean antipathy, it means "comparative rejection".  Presumably God "hates" us when we sin in exactly the same way, c.f. Rom 9:13 where God "hates Esau", and hence the eternal hellfire and whathaveyou.  I'd suggest that atheists "hate" God in precisely the same way.

But to repeat, this does not mean antipathy!  It means rejection.  And definitionally, atheists reject God.  In Reformed-ese, sin = hate = rejection of God.

There's no way around it unless you want to dabble in whatever the monk was whose name started with P of whom Augustine was not fond.

Date: 2007/09/03 01:11:20, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 02 2007,15:33)
TDoL is the third edition of "Of Pandas and People", a Foundation for Thought and Ethics project. FTE brought Dembski aboard as the editor back before the Kitzmiller case. Dembski's bragging about that position and his coming to have expertise by revamping OPAP in his expert report for KvD made it pretty much obligatory that the plaintiffs demand the manuscript for TDoL, and the drafts of OPAP.

It might have been a different ballgame without Dembski's "unwitting" assist that way.

I was skimming the on-line chapter 1 and noticed:

PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HUMANS AND CHIMPANZEES

5. Humans have a fatty inner layer of skin as do aquatic
mammals like whales and hippopotamuses; apes do not.

... more overtones of aquatic apes ...

Date: 2007/09/03 12:13:11, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
And here's some Telic Thoughts on bannination:

http://telicthoughts.com/dave-scott-strikes-again/

Quote

Well, Sal, I hope you begin to understand the sort of people you call your friends. If not, maybe a few more invitations to the opposition, along with their banning for minor infractions will open your eyes.

Date: 2007/09/16 10:44:41, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 15 2007,00:20)
1) Are ladybirds aposematic?

2) What was the coloration of the ladybirds ancestor? Was it dull, cryptic or bright, aposematic?

Hi VM,

I vaguely remember pointing out to you the following:  there is a difference between the statements "I do not know the answer to X" and "X is false".

I recall you agreeing.

In any event, I have no fricking idea why ladybugs have different colors.  If you want to put 10-100 million dollars/euros/whatever towards a crack team of entymologists to work it all out, I'm sure someone can set up a big aviary and work out how to breed ladybugs, and sequence a hella-lotta ladybug genome and work out exactly, and come up with a reasonable answer for you, and provide employment for a few PI's and a great many grad students.

I'm reluctant to come up with the x million myself, because:

- I don't have it;
- if I did I know you'd immediately just ask why the yellow-bellied glider had a yellow belly, whereas the sugar glider doesn't; and
- there's many more useful charitable causes (even of a evolutionary nature) that the cash could be spent on, for instance in research into disease, or endangered species preservation, and indeed many grant bodies seem to share my biases.

So VM, given that you can't tell us whether man and ape has a common ancestor, can you at least answer this question (and save you, and me, and a bunch of charities several million dollars in the investigation of the Petaurus genus ...)

- Why do yellow bellied gliders have a yellow belly and sugar gliders do not?

Given that no-one has to my knowledge answered this question you would be providing a great contribution (on the level of a couple of Nature publications) if you could tell us the answer.

Or alternatively:

- Explain the coloration of ladybugs.  

Again, this is millions of dollars of salaries and taxpayer expenditure which you can apparently click you fingers at.

I also recall a discussion about swans, and vaguely recall saying something along the above lines (i.e. no-one seems to have got a big grant for bazillions to study swan coloration) ... why are black swans black and white swans white?

Why are zebra stripey and horses not stripey?

Given your theory is so powerful, perhaps you could answer one of these questions without having a team of grad students wear themselves out over answering it?

Or maybe you could tell us whether humans and apes have a common ancestor.  As it happens someone has bothered to study this question from a "Darwinian" perspective.  Teams of graduate students have fought (and probably died) to give you an answer from the "Darwinian" point of view, unlike gliders, ladybugs, zebras and swans, where funding is a bit trickier.

If you could therefore explain human-ape ancestry from a VMartin point-of-view, and explain how the millions spent on human-ape evolution (and not spent on ladybug, marsupial glider, zebra/horse, and swan) have been wasted, you would do us all a great service, as our society will then not go on to waste millions of dollars and years of researcher-time on ladybugs etc.

So how about it VM?  Now we've sequences a human and a chimp (unlike swans, ladybugs, zebra/horse and gliders - but if you want to fund this study I'm sure we can find you someone ...), what's your theory's view on human-ape ancestry?

It's not a hard question, and there's a lot of funding and research effort in this area (unlike just about every other species on the planet ... )  so an answer would be peachy.

How about it VM?  Do humans and apes have a common ancestor?  Why or why not?

Date: 2007/09/16 11:01:21, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
... I respectfully notpologise [sic] for choices, which arose only from my passion for the truth, which is without peer.

- William Dembski.

Date: 2008/06/26 00:57:37, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
The Green Eggs and Ham is brilliant.  Well done.

Date: 2008/06/26 02:03:24, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
I'm waiting for how long it takes a creo to

1) Notice this
2) Accuse the author of some kind of copyright violation
3) Fail to remember that the Expelled film use of "Imagine" got through on the same parody/criticism exception that would apply to this

My money's on 5 days.

Date: 2008/10/23 20:42:52, Link
Author: Patrick Caldon
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....in-dvds

Quote

And there are now 260 reviews. More of the reviews I am seeing are not just Darwin cultists venting auto-hate. They include non-cultists engaging with the subject.


Can we have black robes and ghouly altars and stuff?  And sacrificial virgins maybe?

Date: 2010/02/24 23:53:12, Link
Author: Patrickarbuthnot
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 26 2008,18:14)
Antievolutionists want to confuse and conflate meaning and information. Spetner, Gitt, Truman, and Dembski... all of them want meaning to be folded within whatever sort of "information" they propose.

Shannon's discussion of information explicitly excluded meaning. Algorithmic information theory only cares about one aspect of meaning: what is the shortest program and input that can generate a string?

Critique of Dembski's "complex specified information"

Hello Wesley R. Elsberry,
I have never posted on your site before this should prove to be very interesting.

Date: 2010/02/25 00:25:00, Link
Author: Patrickarbuthnot
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 25 2007,17:34)
We already have a topic on Texas textbook selection.

I tried to post and couldn't. I would say my disagreement with this is not just in the state of Texas but the whole  public setting as well needs to be overhauled. We need to return to the proven educational methods and theories of the past. Stop lowering the educational bar for those who can't graduate and stop using textbooks which is basically a persons opinion on what the material is. They need them to read the original books themselves. Thank you

Date: 2010/02/25 02:19:40, Link
Author: Patrickarbuthnot
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 23 2010,07:04)
I was going to work methodological naturalism into this but opted against.

Godel's theorems have been used to justify a lot of crank-ish science. Usually if you hear someone explain what quantum systems are doing that affects your life somehow,  what amazing things fractals can heal or what shocking thing Godel's theorems prove...Odds are you've encountered a crank.

But,

Douglas Hofstadter's Godel Escher Bach as  some/many/most of you know from having read it, is not crank science/math/philosophy. In it, Hofstadter raises questions that go far beyond a neural application. One is that to  try to add to the system at a certain point you have to say that thinking is non-algorithmic strikes me as pretty unlikely. To justify that, all I can really say is that I've been doing a little homework. It's not that hard to design a simple neural style network anymore and Pougot's bayesian brain model is having some sucess as are Hofstadter's ongoing evolved operators, Dennett too.. etc the list is long.

Any modeling process is algorithmic. If any of you are familiar enough with it to have a copy at your desk, you could verify this for me. Because I don't pack it for travel very often. :) Otherwise, it isn't critical. But as he's describing the process of adding new Godel numbers and running the ordinals up also infinitely and etc, showing how you transcend the levels one at a time he gets to the linits of the system being the self because there is no more complex place to go to get more godel numbers because our brains have just hit their max.

Anyway, Bills thread got me thinking and this is what I wondered:

SCIENCE: LEVEL INDEPENDENT METHODOLOGY? And then I fixed caps lock. Do we have a sort of heuristic ability to expand our models by just throwing shit at things and studying it when it sticks?

Science, the empirical method, works at whatever level of resolution we choose to apply it. In a very simple and straightforward way, the scientific method is simply a highly reliable technique for precise pattern detection. Our ability to shift recursive levels and 'see' the interaction of atoms and chemicals as an independent series of repeating patterns or see the trees behaving according to their own unique repeating patterns affords us our basic tool of awareness. Recognizing patterns and how they repeat enables the organism to navigate those patterns and respond to them appropriately.

We recognize things like frequency of repetition: every time we mix pigment with oil we get paint; every Autumn the trees lose their leaves; every forest provides building material; the berries and bark of every cascara tree induce diarrhea, and so on. We assess the isolation level of a pattern: rocks on the ground near us do not affect the resulting mixture of pigment and oil; leaving the skins on the fruit from which we extract pigment weakens the durability of the resulting paint; cascara trees grow within a certain range of conditions, and so on. We note the duration of a repeating pattern: well mixed paint remains waterproof for a range of time before it starts to break down; it takes approximately three hours to cut down a cascara tree and collect the bark and berries; the embers glow until the wood completely turns to ash; the sun shines a little longer every day until a certain point at which it shines for a little less time until the pattern repeats, and so on. We classify patterns so that we recognize the source and conclusion of its operation. That way, even if we search in vain for seeds, we know that where a tree grows, once upon a time a seed sprouted there. A dog-shaped mat of dog hair clinging tenaciously to the rug is a part of the dog shedding repeating pattern. We know the dog slept there and we might know if is likely to sleep there again.

Testing the accuracy and reliability of our pattern recognition keeps us alive, fed, clothed and sheltered. Accuracy completes the modeling-time loop since without accuracy, modeling is normally just called dreaming. The impetus to develop accurate models and predict correctly isn't hard to fathom. Hunting involves understanding the predictable patterns of the prey. Building involves understanding the patterns of material integrity. Farming and agriculture involve knowing the patterns of plant growth and animal reproduction. All of these require accurately predicting the forces involved, estimating the level of control we expect to exert over the process, and predicting the outcome of complicated patterns- It's what we do. That skill, the magic of modeling more time, more than our organism needed for one lifetime, enough to feel confident that it could hatch a plan that would still succeed even beyond the death of the individual, propelled us out of Africa, across the globe, and beyond; at this point it has taken our species to the moon and extended our senses to the entire solar system. The scope of the new model we are building with the expanded storage and computing power of a networked world can hardly be overstated. It seems we know something about 'out there': 'out there' unflinchingly follows repeating patterns, which, once glimpsed, open up doors to new patterns within the universe unimagined by even the previous generation.

Is there any reason to think there are any limits to the vertical/outward ascent of rule transcending? (as opposed to plank lengths etc.) How complicated would we make our models before we stopped figuring stuff out?

Can't add much except the obvious science is not just about collecting obscure facts. Science is also about constructing, testing, and applying scientific theories, particularly the predictive ones..

Date: 2010/02/25 23:17:24, Link
Author: Patrickarbuthnot
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 25 2010,07:52)
McLeroy is lying to the press.  He does want creationism taught in classrooms.  He has totally ignored many of the suggestions of the experts (teachers and scientists) who wrote the standards.

He's also a revisionist historian.  He thinks that Joe McCarthy is a great American hero.

I apologize for my state, which I love, I just hate the idiots that are in charge of it.

education should teach students the facts, provides them with logical tools to use those facts and perfect the student’s ability to relate those facts to others. However,  the process of teaching students to think extends far beyond filling their heads with knowledge. Like I said we need to return to the old system of learning and make student excel and not reward poor education.

Date: 2010/02/26 23:14:02, Link
Author: Patrickarbuthnot
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 26 2010,13:50)
Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Feb. 25 2010,23:17)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 25 2010,07:52)
McLeroy is lying to the press.  He does want creationism taught in classrooms.  He has totally ignored many of the suggestions of the experts (teachers and scientists) who wrote the standards.

He's also a revisionist historian.  He thinks that Joe McCarthy is a great American hero.

I apologize for my state, which I love, I just hate the idiots that are in charge of it.

education should teach students the facts, provides them with logical tools to use those facts and perfect the student’s ability to relate those facts to others. However,  the process of teaching students to think extends far beyond filling their heads with knowledge. Like I said we need to return to the old system of learning and make student excel and not reward poor education.

That's one reason I quit teaching.  After I got 'a talking to' by the principle about teaching evolution, I had to explain to her that evolution is a standard that we are required by the state to teach.

I had too many grades changed after the fact to deal with it any more.  The complaints raised to the Texas school board gained my school a 'conservetor' which basically was a non-voting member of the school board for 18 months.  Yep, that helped a bunch.

I was really pissed when one of the smartest kids I know was denied entrance to UT, but our star running back who had a straight 'D' average got a full ride scholarship to UT.  Then flunked out in his second semester and was drafted to Cincinati (I think).  The smart kid?  He's Best Buy geek Squad kid because he's having to pay for his mother's lack of welfare.

Unfortunately that is but one subject. The WHOLE education system needs a overhaul.

Date: 2010/02/27 00:38:24, Link
Author: Patrickarbuthnot
Quote (blipey @ Mar. 05 2008,13:46)
J-Dog touched on something that is important, but not in the spotlight, regarding the IDC movement in public schools.

Textbooks publishers are in business like anyone else and they take their cues from a relatively small number of districts.  The high population states of Texas, California, and New York have a disproportionate (as regards total number of school districts) influence on what textbooks get used, and therefore which ones get published.

These states maybe need a little more attention paid to them.

I will repeat my convictions. To teach with textbooks does a disservice to the student.

Date: 2010/02/28 03:02:05, Link
Author: Patrickarbuthnot
Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 27 2010,22:32)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 27 2010,20:26)
Quote (ck1 @ Feb. 27 2010,12:07)
 
Quote
. . . And while the board apparently won't take up intelligent design, several members expect a battle over how evolution is treated in science textbooks, although that won't be up for debate until 2011. Mr. McLeroy and others say they'll push for books to include a more thorough examination of weaknesses in the theory of evolution.


Do these people ever provide a list of the "weaknesses" of the ToE they wish to include in science classes?

The people involved don't know anything about science.  All they know is that "evilution = hate jeebus"

I encounter that quite a bit with my students.  They really haven't been taught creationism; you rarely get more than a "why are there still monkeys?" argument on the details.  They've just been taught that it's Jesus or evolution, and since they know nothing about evolution, it's an easy choice for them to make.

Critical thinking must be re introduced back into school or else why teach anything?

Date: 2010/03/03 04:53:51, Link
Author: Patrickarbuthnot
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 28 2010,07:49)
Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Feb. 28 2010,03:02)
Critical thinking must be re introduced back into school or else why teach anything?

When was it taken out, would you say?

I would venture to say the turn of the 20th century. It's been down hill since then.

Date: 2010/03/03 23:42:33, Link
Author: Patrickarbuthnot
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 03 2010,06:39)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 03 2010,05:00)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Mar. 01 2010,21:34)
To illustrate what we're up against:

A student asked me today if you could fly high enough into the sky to reach heaven.  The student was 16.  And pregnant.

On the plus side, some of the other students jumped in to explain to her that, you know, space is up there.  We send people there occasionally.

I'm not sure whether to take away hope or despair from this.

Well, you can take away hope because Don McElroy has lost the Republican primary to represent District 9 on the State Board of Education.

Cool! I put that on my blog.

When we look under a microscope the modern public education it appears it has been weighed in many scales and found wanting. What is your take on education Wesley Elsberry, I would like to know?

Date: 2010/03/03 23:44:55, Link
Author: Patrickarbuthnot
Quote (bfish @ Mar. 03 2010,20:33)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 03 2010,03:00)
Well, you can take away hope because Don McElroy has lost the Republican primary to represent District 9 on the State Board of Education.

It's about time District 9 had decent representation.


I am sorry I am a census card carrying American Indian by my father's blood and white by my mother . I could careless about either party.

Date: 2010/03/04 05:29:06, Link
Author: Patrickarbuthnot
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 27 2010,05:30)
Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Feb. 27 2010,00:38)
 
Quote (blipey @ Mar. 05 2008,13:46)
J-Dog touched on something that is important, but not in the spotlight, regarding the IDC movement in public schools.

Textbooks publishers are in business like anyone else and they take their cues from a relatively small number of districts.  The high population states of Texas, California, and New York have a disproportionate (as regards total number of school districts) influence on what textbooks get used, and therefore which ones get published.

These states maybe need a little more attention paid to them.

I will repeat my convictions. To teach with textbooks does a disservice to the student.

Teaching subjects badly is a disservice to the student.

Teaching from a textbook may be relatively worse than having someone who knows the subject well put together an engaging curriculum tailored to the grade level(s) to be taught.

What we get to argue over is just how badly we are willing for subjects to be taught.

There is the old one about what to call your kid's biology teacher if you haven't been introduced before... the answer is, "Coach".

In all too many places, schools are quite willing to have subjects taught by teachers who have no background in that subject at all. Asking those folks to present biology to students without the aid of a textbook is a recipe for certain disaster. So while in an ideal world where we would dig into our pockets and pay up to have our students taught by people who have earned their clues in the actual discipline being taught, textbooks might be sniffled at as stifling messengers of mediocrity, the fact is that we live in a world where skinflints will happily pay teachers on a scale lower than waste removal people if they can, and thus attract a workforce sometimes worthy of their compensation.

Or did I miss a different concern about textbooks that you have stated elsewhere?

Forgive me I missed this post. I agree with you entirely,  except I would add  the outdated employment practice called “teacher tenure”. Keeping incompetent, troubled, and burnt-out teachers in the system, while keeping out people who are actually committed to educating children is appalling to me.
 Yet we do it. I would like to see the day were children could be in a classroom and openly debate on many subjects with a proficient teacher. I think it would sharpen there critical thinking capability and enforce what they have learned. I don't know your views on this but it was a successful model in the past.

Date: 2010/03/09 01:38:39, Link
Author: Patrickarbuthnot
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 04 2010,05:26)
So, throw out the textbooks and burn the standardized tests. Let the teachers teach... what, exactly? How, precisely? You may have noticed that the U.S. already has a bit of a problem with teachers and school boards that teach whatever the hell they like. That's not working out so well for the students involved.

I'm not down with this rather open-ended plan, frankly. When teachers and school boards already sneak in whatever addle-brained nonsense tickles their religious perineum, this plan thus far only seems to eliminate the "sneak" part.

I don't know why we all worry about this. With every country arming itself with nukes it is just a matter of time before some wacko has a bad day and tries to end it all.

Date: 2010/03/09 01:49:34, Link
Author: Patrickarbuthnot
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,16:44)
Back in May 2000, someone asked about Davison's manifesto on the TalkOrigins Archive feedback, and I had a response there.

It still looks good to me.

I have read some of Davison's work, I really have no opinion to give. But I have recently have been cited a book to read called "Acquiring Genomes: A Theory Of The Origin Of Species"  by Lynn Margulis (Author), Dorion Sagan (Author) before I check it out anybody wants to add anything?

Date: 2010/03/09 01:51:25, Link
Author: Patrickarbuthnot
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,16:44)
Back in May 2000, someone asked about Davison's manifesto on the TalkOrigins Archive feedback, and I had a response there.

It still looks good to me.

comments; Her new book, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species, extends and deepens that argument. Margulis sets out to prove that new species rarely if ever appear as the result of mutation, isolation, genetic drift, or population bottlenecks--the meat and potatoes of neo-Darwinism. Instead she maintains that the major engine of evolutionary change, the source of most of the new forms that natural selection edits, is symbiogenesis--the acquisition of whole genomes as the result of symbiotic associations between different kinds of organisms. (Knowing that some people will seize on her thesis as an attack on the theory of evolution as a whole, Margulis makes it clear that she fully supports Darwin's great discovery of the mechanism of natural selection. She simply thinks that neo-Darwinists have failed to recognize the enormous creative power of genomic mergers.) Does it smell of ID?

Date: 2010/03/10 01:21:00, Link
Author: Patrickarbuthnot
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 09 2010,16:55)
Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 09 2010,01:49)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,16:44)
Back in May 2000, someone asked about Davison's manifesto on the TalkOrigins Archive feedback, and I had a response there.

It still looks good to me.

I have read some of Davison's work, I really have no opinion to give. But I have recently have been cited a book to read called "Acquiring Genomes: A Theory Of The Origin Of Species"  by Lynn Margulis (Author), Dorion Sagan (Author) before I check it out anybody wants to add anything?

 
Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 09 2010,01:51)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,16:44)
Back in May 2000, someone asked about Davison's manifesto on the TalkOrigins Archive feedback, and I had a response there.

It still looks good to me.

comments; Her new book, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species, extends and deepens that argument. Margulis sets out to prove that new species rarely if ever appear as the result of mutation, isolation, genetic drift, or population bottlenecks--the meat and potatoes of neo-Darwinism. Instead she maintains that the major engine of evolutionary change, the source of most of the new forms that natural selection edits, is symbiogenesis--the acquisition of whole genomes as the result of symbiotic associations between different kinds of organisms. (Knowing that some people will seize on her thesis as an attack on the theory of evolution as a whole, Margulis makes it clear that she fully supports Darwin's great discovery of the mechanism of natural selection. She simply thinks that neo-Darwinists have failed to recognize the enormous creative power of genomic mergers.) Does it smell of ID?


So in two minutes time, "Patrickarbuthnot" goes from having no familiarity with the Margulis and Sagan book and wanting feedback to being able to summarize its contents and link them to the PEH. Color me skeptical. BTW, reading the dust cover is not quite the same thing as reading the book.

Oh, and I missed it before, but there is a historical problem with characterizing Margulis as "extending" the PEH, since endosymbiosis comfortably predates PEH by decades.

forgive me Dr.Elsberry,  I didn't understand what you were referencing to until I  reread my post which was suppose to be just a reference for the book I didn't realized the comments which I posted from Amazon's quotes did not paste in it's entirely(book and link) from Amazon, I haven't read either books nor can I offer any opinions on either theories. I was just curious on how her book was received. I am aware of how Davison and IDist are, that is what the origin of my question. I know she is a recipient of the Darwin-Wallace Medal. Yet I was told by a pupil of hers she considers herself Anti-Darwin? Panda's thumb opinion " http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/lynn-margulis-d.html" yet at http://www.expelledexposed.com  she stated " Margulis strongly opposes the idea, widely held within the scientific community, that the driving force in evolution is competition, and thinks cooperative and symbiotic relationships are underemphasized by many evolutionary scientists. Despite holding views different from many in the scientific community, because of her research, she is well respected, and has been elected to the National Academy of Sciences and awarded the National Medal of Science." So that is why I was asking clarification?

Date: 2010/03/10 01:32:31, Link
Author: Patrickarbuthnot
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 09 2010,16:55)
Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 09 2010,01:49)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,16:44)
Back in May 2000, someone asked about Davison's manifesto on the TalkOrigins Archive feedback, and I had a response there.

It still looks good to me.

I have read some of Davison's work, I really have no opinion to give. But I have recently have been cited a book to read called "Acquiring Genomes: A Theory Of The Origin Of Species"  by Lynn Margulis (Author), Dorion Sagan (Author) before I check it out anybody wants to add anything?

 
Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 09 2010,01:51)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,16:44)
Back in May 2000, someone asked about Davison's manifesto on the TalkOrigins Archive feedback, and I had a response there.

It still looks good to me.

comments; Her new book, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species, extends and deepens that argument. Margulis sets out to prove that new species rarely if ever appear as the result of mutation, isolation, genetic drift, or population bottlenecks--the meat and potatoes of neo-Darwinism. Instead she maintains that the major engine of evolutionary change, the source of most of the new forms that natural selection edits, is symbiogenesis--the acquisition of whole genomes as the result of symbiotic associations between different kinds of organisms. (Knowing that some people will seize on her thesis as an attack on the theory of evolution as a whole, Margulis makes it clear that she fully supports Darwin's great discovery of the mechanism of natural selection. She simply thinks that neo-Darwinists have failed to recognize the enormous creative power of genomic mergers.) Does it smell of ID?


So in two minutes time, "Patrickarbuthnot" goes from having no familiarity with the Margulis and Sagan book and wanting feedback to being able to summarize its contents and link them to the PEH. Color me skeptical. BTW, reading the dust cover is not quite the same thing as reading the book.

Oh, and I missed it before, but there is a historical problem with characterizing Margulis as "extending" the PEH, since endosymbiosis comfortably predates PEH by decades.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....g-ideas

Here is a article from the opposing side.

Date: 2010/03/10 03:52:13, Link
Author: Patrickarbuthnot
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 10 2010,01:55)
Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 10 2010,01:21)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 09 2010,16:55)
   
Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 09 2010,01:49)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,16:44)
Back in May 2000, someone asked about Davison's manifesto on the TalkOrigins Archive feedback, and I had a response there.

It still looks good to me.

I have read some of Davison's work, I really have no opinion to give. But I have recently have been cited a book to read called "Acquiring Genomes: A Theory Of The Origin Of Species"  by Lynn Margulis (Author), Dorion Sagan (Author) before I check it out anybody wants to add anything?

     
Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 09 2010,01:51)
       
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,16:44)
Back in May 2000, someone asked about Davison's manifesto on the TalkOrigins Archive feedback, and I had a response there.

It still looks good to me.

comments; Her new book, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species, extends and deepens that argument. Margulis sets out to prove that new species rarely if ever appear as the result of mutation, isolation, genetic drift, or population bottlenecks--the meat and potatoes of neo-Darwinism. Instead she maintains that the major engine of evolutionary change, the source of most of the new forms that natural selection edits, is symbiogenesis--the acquisition of whole genomes as the result of symbiotic associations between different kinds of organisms. (Knowing that some people will seize on her thesis as an attack on the theory of evolution as a whole, Margulis makes it clear that she fully supports Darwin's great discovery of the mechanism of natural selection. She simply thinks that neo-Darwinists have failed to recognize the enormous creative power of genomic mergers.) Does it smell of ID?


So in two minutes time, "Patrickarbuthnot" goes from having no familiarity with the Margulis and Sagan book and wanting feedback to being able to summarize its contents and link them to the PEH. Color me skeptical. BTW, reading the dust cover is not quite the same thing as reading the book.

Oh, and I missed it before, but there is a historical problem with characterizing Margulis as "extending" the PEH, since endosymbiosis comfortably predates PEH by decades.

forgive me Dr.Elsberry,  I didn't understand what you were referencing to until I  reread my post which was suppose to be just a reference for the book I didn't realized the comments which I posted from Amazon's quotes did not paste in it's entirely(book and link) from Amazon, I haven't read either books nor can I offer any opinions on either theories. I was just curious on how her book was received. I am aware of how Davison and IDist are, that is what the origin of my question. I know she is a recipient of the Darwin-Wallace Medal. Yet I was told by a pupil of hers she considers herself Anti-Darwin? Panda's thumb opinion " http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/lynn-margulis-d.html" yet at http://www.expelledexposed.com  she stated " Margulis strongly opposes the idea, widely held within the scientific community, that the driving force in evolution is competition, and thinks cooperative and symbiotic relationships are underemphasized by many evolutionary scientists. Despite holding views different from many in the scientific community, because of her research, she is well respected, and has been elected to the National Academy of Sciences and awarded the National Medal of Science." So that is why I was asking clarification?

OK, I can see how an unsuccessful cut-and-paste job could botch the referent for "that argument". That just leaves the "smell of ID" thing, which I've already answered in the negative.

My two cents: Margulis, like Roughgarden, seems to have a narrow and critical opinion of what Darwin wrote that is not well-founded. That is, they both set up strawmen that they attribute to Darwin and merrily whack away at those. This is perhaps because they are more interested in lab work than actually reading what Darwin wrote. That's not a bad thing on its own, but coupled with expressing themselves hyperbolically on Darwin, it rather reduces my estimation of their scholarship. It takes nothing at all away from their contributions to science, but it is unseemly.

Okay now I understand where your coming from.Thank you for explaining it. I will proceed to read her work then with precautions, thank you.

Date: 2010/03/10 05:12:43, Link
Author: Patrickarbuthnot
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 10 2010,04:00)
Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 10 2010,03:52)
Okay now I understand where your coming from.Thank you for explaining it. I will proceed to read her work then with precautions, thank you.

Once you've read it perhaps you could comment on how you feel UncommonDescent has represented her work?

As you linked to them as an alternative viewpoint on this issue I'd be interested to see if you go along with them after actually reading what they are writing about.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit  I will,  but just so you know I pulled their article up when I put her name in the search engine. I don't read their articles unless they are pulled up while  looking subjects up by Google. :)

Date: 2010/03/10 23:24:50, Link
Author: Patrickarbuthnot
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 10 2010,07:43)
Sorry I missed this thread (visiting sick mother with no internet connection!).

To those speculating on a JAD sock, John only managed to use a puppet a while ago (Dr Johnson, I think it was) because Dave Springer set it up for him and emailed him the login details. He just isn't that savvy!

@ Dublin Evans (if he hasn't flounced):

How does the PEH explain lockstep of organism to niche? I recall John Davison as fond of remarking " the environment had nothing to do with it".

ETA punctuation

Sorry,  I think I inadvertently started  a PEH/Symbiosis debate.



[Banned user text deleted - WRE]



Date: 2010/03/11 06:43:05, Link
Author: Patrickarbuthnot
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 11 2010,06:37)
John A. Davison was banned for cause. Posting by proxy is not an option.

If you have your own thoughts about PEH, those would be fine to post.

Thank You Dr. Elsberry I do have a lot of reading ahead of me. :)

Date: 2010/03/11 23:08:38, Link
Author: Patrickarbuthnot
Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 11 2010,08:08)
On Margulis: I have not read her book, but from reviews I can see here and there, I can only concur with her critics. Her view on speciation is not supported by studies on natural populations.

I may expand on this topic, which have been my area of research for the past 4 years. At best, it may inform our friend Patrickarbuthnot and clear some early misconceptions on speciation (for example, the view that speciation rarely involves natural selection).
Contrarily to Margulis' opinion, there is considerable evidence that speciation involves genetic changes (point mutations or other genomic rearrangements) and wherever these changes have been pinpointed, they appeared to have been subject to selection. In many cases divergent adaptation to distinct ecological niches has been shown to contribute to reproductive isolation. Geographical isolation will permit the fixation of these changes, though it is not an absolute requirement if divergent selection is strong.
On the other hand, there very little (or no) evidence that genetic drift and bottlenecks induce reproductive isolation (via the "genetic revolutions" proposed by Mayr, among other models). The various founder-effect speciation models have failed all laboratory tests. These were proposed to explain the frequent events of peripratric speciation (in founding populations), but in the end, it seems that natural selection in the new colonized habitat is the main driver of reproductive isolation (aided by geographical isolation).
Speciation by deleterious chromosomal rearrangements does not appear very common. The "stasipatric" model of speciation has recently been discredited in the biological model where it was first proposed (Australian grasshoppers or something). But chromosomal speciation requires more investigation. It could act in mammals, but the only studied case I know is the house mouse. There may be a couple of other candidate models though.
Speciation by polyploidization is frequent in plants (especially ferns), but less common than the classical model (selected genetic changes in isolated populations) and rare in animals.

Overall, it seems that Margulis gives too much importance to endosymbiosis. Although it certainly enabled the colonization of new niches (in insects in particular), thereby contributing to biodiversity, a direct link to speciation is not demonstrated.
It is sad that Margulis seems to embrace controversial hypotheses without looking carefully at the available data. I am not judging from her book (which I haven't read), but from the recent fiasco at PNAS, where she communicated this ridulous paper advocating the hypothesis that caterpillars came from velvet worms.  :(

If you don't mind I will ask her that very thing in a e-mail and see what she says? I don't necessarily believe her hypothesis is correct I just am interested in her research.

Date: 2011/07/02 12:19:26, Link
Author: Patrick
Quote (Seversky @ July 02 2011,10:53)
 
Quote (paragwinn @ July 02 2011,09:30)
'Little Boy'-size comment mushrooms into 'Fat Man'-size response from KF:    

I think that dragging kf's wife and children into this was going too far.

I agree.  Not only does that cross a line, it detracts from the clear evidence of kairosfocus' hypocrisy, as demonstrated in this thread among many others.

His umbrage at everyone who ever posted on Mark Frank's blog is particularly apropos:

Quote
Perhaps it has not dawned on you that the situation has now fundamentally changed, once your side has tolerated outing behaviour and increasingly disrespectful rhetoric leading to the creation of an attack blog that resorts to vulgarity as well as slander-laced outing behaviour as its main tactics.

Madam, you are now associated with and unavoidably tainted by a cesspit of misbehaviour, and have a lot to answer for.

I'm sure he'll be leaving Uncommon Descent very soon to avoid being associated with "outing behavior and increasingly disrespectful rhetoric."

Date: 2011/07/04 10:33:24, Link
Author: Patrick
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 04 2011,08:39)
Gordo asks:
   
Quote

Is the CSI concept well-founded mathematically, and can it be applied to the real world, giving real and useful numbers?


As expected, kairosfocus fails to provide a rigorous mathematical definition of CSI as described by Dembski and offers no example calculations.  I don't know why I even bothered to check.

I'm sure Dembski will ride in on a white horse to save CSI, and Princess kairosfocus, real soon now.

Date: 2011/07/04 11:06:39, Link
Author: Patrick
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 04 2011,11:38)
 
Quote (Patrick @ July 04 2011,11:33)
       
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 04 2011,08:39)
Gordo asks:
             
Quote

Is the CSI concept well-founded mathematically, and can it be applied to the real world, giving real and useful numbers?


As expected, kairosfocus fails to provide a rigorous mathematical definition of CSI as described by Dembski and offers no example calculations.  I don't know why I even bothered to check.

I'm sure Dembski will ride in on a white horse to save CSI, and Princess kairosfocus, real soon now.

Somehow he omitted anything applicable to "the real world" or resembling "real and useful numbers." Must have been an oversight.

That or he's a lying, ignorant, delusional, concern trolling, bloviating, pretentious, bigoted, sanctimonious, arrogant hypocrite completely lacking in intellectual integrity.

You know, one or the other.

Date: 2011/07/04 12:15:01, Link
Author: Patrick
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 04 2011,12:42)
patrick welcome.  you aren't by any chance the UD patrick are you?

No, I'm the <a href="http://www.softwarematters.org/mathgrrl.html">UD MathGrrl</a>.  I wouldn't want my real name associated with that place.  ;-)

Date: 2011/07/04 15:17:23, Link
Author: Patrick
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ July 04 2011,14:01)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 04 2011,18:57)
Quote (Patrick @ July 04 2011,12:15)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 04 2011,12:42)
patrick welcome.  you aren't by any chance the UD patrick are you?

No, I'm the <a href="http://www.softwarematters.org/mathgrrl.html">UD MathGrrl</a>.  I wouldn't want my real name associated with that place.  ;-)

I sponsor the edit button for Patrick!

Definitely!

Thanks, but I could just use the already available Preview button more consistently.  :-P

Date: 2011/07/05 13:59:33, Link
Author: Patrick
WWII (Weasel Wars II) is breaking out on UD.  mike1962 offers to consume his clothing:

Quote
If you can show me a program that ends up with a target string after 43 stabs at the entire string with any mutation rate for each character, I’ll eat my hat.

It just so happens that I have such a program.  If anyone who still can post at UD would like to suggest to mike1962 that he compile and run it like so:  "./weasel 500 0.05" (a population size of 500 and a mutation rate of 5%), perhaps we'll get an interesting YouTube video out of it.

Date: 2011/07/05 14:29:22, Link
Author: Patrick
Quote (Patrick @ July 05 2011,14:59)
WWII (Weasel Wars II) is breaking out on UD.  mike1962 offers to consume his clothing:

 
Quote
If you can show me a program that ends up with a target string after 43 stabs at the entire string with any mutation rate for each character, I’ll eat my hat.

It just so happens that I have such a program.  If anyone who still can post at UD would like to suggest to mike1962 that he compile and run it like so:  "./weasel 500 0.05" (a population size of 500 and a mutation rate of 5%), perhaps we'll get an interesting YouTube video out of it.

Corrected link:  to Weasel source.

It just occurred to me that the reason the UD creationists are so fixated on this toy program isn't because of anything to do with evolution but because they get a pleasant little frisson whenever they say "Dawkins' Weasel."

Date: 2011/07/05 15:20:25, Link
Author: Patrick
Quote (dvunkannon @ July 05 2011,15:48)
Quote (Patrick @ July 05 2011,15:29)
 
Quote (Patrick @ July 05 2011,14:59)
WWII (Weasel Wars II) is breaking out on UD.  mike1962 offers to consume his clothing:

   
Quote
If you can show me a program that ends up with a target string after 43 stabs at the entire string with any mutation rate for each character, I’ll eat my hat.

It just so happens that I have such a program.  If anyone who still can post at UD would like to suggest to mike1962 that he compile and run it like so:  "./weasel 500 0.05" (a population size of 500 and a mutation rate of 5%), perhaps we'll get an interesting YouTube video out of it.

Corrected link:  to Weasel source.

It just occurred to me that the reason the UD creationists are so fixated on this toy program isn't because of anything to do with evolution but because they get a pleasant little frisson whenever they say "Dawkins' Weasel."

I think he means 43 total, so your first generation of 500 would blow past that limit.

Oh dear Eris, does he really mean 43 individuals rather than 43 generations?  How bad is his reading comprehension?

From The Blind Watchmaker:
Quote
And the target was finally reached in generation 43.

Date: 2011/07/06 06:49:19, Link
Author: Patrick
Quote (Driver @ July 06 2011,07:15)
Ilion:

 
Quote
Information exists ‘within’ — and only ‘within’ — minds. There is no information, whatsoever, “out there” in the physical/material world.



Another commenter at UD is off-message.

(and at odds with physics, but never mind that eh?)

Hey, when no one defines their terms, everyone can be right!  (Except for those damn Darwinists, of course.)

Date: 2011/07/07 15:39:00, Link
Author: Patrick
Quote (Freddie @ July 07 2011,16:27)
mung could be next in line for a visit from the loudspeaker in the ceiling.  He's managed to piss off both batshite and Ilion in the past few days, now he's gunning for StephenB by channeling PaV:

I've come close to calling Poe on Mung several times over the past few months.  Even if he's not an agent provocateur, he's at least more interested in stirring up the rich organic matter of which UD is formed than in constantly and publicly praising the designer.  He also seems to have something resembling a sense of humor, which makes him an anomaly among creationists.

Date: 2011/07/07 16:03:19, Link
Author: Patrick
Quote (KCdgw @ July 07 2011,16:51)
Quote (Patrick @ July 07 2011,15:39)
Quote (Freddie @ July 07 2011,16:27)
mung could be next in line for a visit from the loudspeaker in the ceiling.  He's managed to piss off both batshite and Ilion in the past few days, now he's gunning for StephenB by channeling PaV:

I've come close to calling Poe on Mung several times over the past few months.  Even if he's not an agent provocateur, he's at least more interested in stirring up the rich organic matter of which UD is formed than in constantly and publicly praising the designer.  He also seems to have something resembling a sense of humor, which makes him an anomaly among creationists.

Mung is not a Poe.

Got it.  No more publicity directed at the Mungster.  *lays finger aside nose*  ;-)

Date: 2011/07/09 13:45:31, Link
Author: Patrick
gpuccio returns!  Unfortunately, he seems to have gone insane:
Quote
Hi, KF!

It’s a great pleasure to be with you here. I want to compliment you with all my heart for the wonderful work you are doing.

I wonder if he'll return to the discussion on Mark Frank's blog that he dropped back in April, just as we were about to calculate us some CSI.

Date: 2011/07/10 16:01:45, Link
Author: Patrick
Joseph explains "cdesign proponentsists" as a simple typo:

Quote
Yes Nick, I looked up “cdesign proponentsists”- it appears in a ROUGH draft of the book “Of Pandas and People”- a ROUGH draft.

Now if one looks at a standard keyboard one would obseve that the “d” key and the “c” key are close enough together that one could hit them both when just trying to hit one of them.

Sure, Joseph, that completely accounts for the global search and replace immediately after Edwards v. Aguillard.  Typos.  Lots and lots of typos.

Date: 2011/07/11 10:13:04, Link
Author: Patrick
Elizabeth Liddle has the patience of a . . . well, a phenomenally patient thing.  She continues to engage with Upright BiPed despite his clear lack of either interest in clarifying his statements.

It's painfully obvious that neither Upright BiPed nor any other UD denizen wants to make their claims testable.  Dr. Liddle's continued efforts to extract meaning from their maunderings is admirable.  While I'm almost certain that she won't be successful, the thread will serve as yet more documentation of the scientific vacuity of intelligent design creationism and the lack of intellectual integrity of its supporters.

I continue to be shocked that Dembski has failed to participate in any of these discussions of information.  One would expect the Newton (Isaac, Fig, or Oliva/John) of information theory to be willing to clear up any misunderstandings of his work.

Date: 2011/07/11 15:23:39, Link
Author: Patrick
Quote (George @ July 11 2011,16:11)
Elizabeth Liddle's sterling work over there and your fantastic avatar (whence the lambda?) put me in mind of the classic line from Dark Star Tard:

"Search light casting
For thoughts
In the clouds of delusion."

I got the avatar from some PLT Schemer.  The Dead and Lisp go together like chocolate and cabernet.

Plus, it freaks out the right kind of people *cough*kairosfocus*cough* ever since some LGBT groups started using the lambda symbol.

Date: 2011/07/13 09:32:13, Link
Author: Patrick
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 13 2011,10:17)
Quote (CeilingCat @ July 13 2011,07:00)
I do believe that Bully Arrington has been had....

Yes, I think Bully has been had.  Some of the other people in the thread seem to think so too.

Barry:
 
Quote
NOW TO THE CONTEST: Even though the legal matter has been resolved, I will not allow the last two paragraphs of the letter, which, in my view, are equal parts smug and pompous, go un-rebutted.

Well, if anyone knows smug and pompous, it is Barry. So I defer to him on that. And it is a notpology, not particularly admirable regardless of who delivers it.

Unaddressed in the settlement is the tragic educational and intellectual disfigurement suffered by the student at the hands of her parents, church and community. Seems unlikely that Barry's efforts will address that.

Does anyone have any independent corroboration of this story?  A quick Google search didn't turn up anything like this in a Colorado university this year.  Not that I would ever suspect an intelligent design creationist of misrepresenting reality, of course.

If the professor actually lost his temper or insulted a student in class, that would certainly be reason for him to apologize, regardless of the topic.  I can't help but suspect, though, that this is another instance of paying off a nuisance rather than spending money on lawyers.

Date: 2011/07/13 11:02:40, Link
Author: Patrick
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 13 2011,10:47)
It does say something that Mung is the resident intellectual giant here.

"Intellectual giant" is definitely stretching it.  More of a mental midget with platform shoes.

(By the way, looking for an appropriate image to illustrate this analogy leads to some very disturbing sites.)

Date: 2011/07/13 11:22:23, Link
Author: Patrick
lastyearon points at the elephant in the room:
Quote
Both you and the ID supporters here are projecting your own approach onto your opponent.

Since many ID supporters here have A priori beliefs that they are absolutely committed to, and since they cannot evaluate the arguments you make without bias, they assume that those very same motives apply to you.

And since you take a rational approach, and try to evaluate arguments by their merit and without a commitment to a belief system, you assume that those very same attributes apply to the ID proponents here(although after hundreds of hours of the same arguments you clearly recognize that isn’t really the case).

Countdown to the howling of kairosfocus and the link spewing of bornagain77 in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

Date: 2011/07/13 11:33:51, Link
Author: Patrick
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 13 2011,12:28)
Quote (Patrick @ July 13 2011,10:32)
Does anyone have any independent corroboration of this story?  A quick Google search didn't turn up anything like this in a Colorado university this year.

Go here.

That was just evil.

Date: 2011/07/13 17:56:42, Link
Author: Patrick
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ July 13 2011,16:02)
Patrick, I am not afraid to say, I think I love you and would propose you in any elevator, whatever the time.

Seriously, stick around, and don't pay attention to Louis or Richard (or Arden). they're just right*...







*Sadly, they often really are...

Thanks.  I just figured the new guy always gets Chickrolled around here.

Date: 2011/07/13 17:58:02, Link
Author: Patrick
Quote (Driver @ July 13 2011,16:20)
And Patrick thought all he had to do to curb the proposals was stop being a girl.

You know, they really have slowed down significantly....

Date: 2011/07/13 20:08:52, Link
Author: Patrick
Ilion and Mung are going beyond the bounds of even the usual UD levels of civility.  Somewhere in their willfully stunted little minds they seem to understand that Elizabeth Liddle is more intelligent, patient, thoughtful, eloquent, ethical, and honest than they have any hope of being.

I consider free speech to be a good in and of itself and vigorous debate to be essential to arriving at some approximation of truth, but these contemptible, sanctimonious ignorati do make my darker side pine for the lost days of the code duello.

Date: 2011/07/14 08:46:33, Link
Author: Patrick
At one point during her tenure at UD, MathGrrl briefly tried to get Upright BiPed to clarify his claims about semiotics and information:

Quote
I pointed out several times in that thread (comment 57), you never clearly stated your argument nor summarized the evidence you believe supports it. Based on the limited information you did provide, I noted that you seemed to be confusing the map with the territory. I told you there that I would be happy to discuss your argument further whenever you were willing to articulate it and your evidence clearly.

She gave up trying to nail that particular gelatinous mass to the wall.

Elizabeth Liddle has patiently and politely rubbed Upright BiPed's nose in his own circular definitions, and he doesn't like the smell.  She then continues to slay him with kindness.

Even knowing that Upright BiPed lacks the intellectual integrity to admit defeat or, horror of horrors, work with Dr. Liddle to make his claims testable, it's good to see the air let out of a pompous blowhard.

Date: 2011/07/14 08:48:20, Link
Author: Patrick
Damn, scooped by Zachriel!

Date: 2011/07/14 11:51:24, Link
Author: Patrick
Upright BiPed, Super Genius:
 
Quote
She literally does not understand what information is, she does not realize that it is necessarily (being an immaterial phenomenon) manifest in symbolic representations, and does not “get it” that those symbols must go through rules (protocols) in order to have an effect.

The fact that intelligent design creationists refuse to commit to a consistent definition of "information" has nothing to do with any confusion that has arisen in the discussion?
 
Quote
She literally thinks that she can simulate the rise of information, then indicate its presence by reading a numercial value within a certain threshold from the output of the simulation.

Like kairosfocus and others who talk about "500 bits of CSI"?

Even an insufferably arrogant prick like Upright BiPed must realize that Elizabeth Liddle is very successfully demonstrating the vacuity of his claims.  It's too bad that cognitive dissonance isn't fatal.

Date: 2011/07/14 12:43:29, Link
Author: Patrick
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 14 2011,12:58)
Unpleasant Blowhard lives up to his cognomen:
 
Quote
[E.L] is trying to check her headlight pressue with the dipstick...

I will give him that she's been interacting with a dipstick.

Four, by my count.  Upright BiPed, Mung, Ilion, and gpuccio are all in a race to the bottom in that thread.

I'm sure the UD civility police will break it up soon.  *taps foot impatiently*

Date: 2011/07/15 08:26:26, Link
Author: Patrick
News posts Bacteria Smarter Than Us.

No comment necessary.

Date: 2011/07/15 11:08:52, Link
Author: Patrick
Elizabeth Liddle lets slip her real reason for participating on UD:
Quote
And yes, I am a scientist – my field is neuroscience, specifically neuroimaging research into mental disorders.

Date: 2011/07/15 18:42:05, Link
Author: Patrick
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 15 2011,19:14)
At Mark Frank's blog, nearly a month ago, I remarked vis Liz Liddle's dialog with Unpleasant Blowhard:
       
Quote
I think Liz has taken a wrong turn in the discussion. IMO she has been far too accepting of UB’s gas-bag definitions, and would have been better served by sticking to her guns and requiring that UB supply a workable operational definition of information as he construes it, such that both can agree whether her ambitious simulation has either demonstrated it or has not.

He won’t be able to provide one, nor will any body else. That is a point worthy of demonstration.

And later:
   
Quote
Of course, this [Blowhard's definition] bears no resemblance to an operational definition, as no operations, measurements or procedures for deciding whether/how much information is present are present in this definition. UB obviously has no idea what an operational definition is, and I don’t see any purpose served in allowing him to sustain the illusion that he and Liz have found common ground in an “operational definition” from which she can proceed.

Although she has the patience of Job, she has finally reached the conclusion that was inevitable from the outset:
       
Quote
Upright BiPed, you no doubt know a lot about information but you do not know how to operationalise a hypothesis.

And it was worthy of demonstration.

[ETA teeny extras]

Upright BiPed, like several other UD denizens, still retains the ability to amaze me with his inability to understand that definitions matter:
Quote
The Popper in me says that the descriptors are far less important that the understanding anyway.

"We can't define pornographyinformation, but we know when we see itover and over again!"

Date: 2011/07/16 07:33:48, Link
Author: Patrick
Ilion asks a question that needs an answer:
Quote
EL “I do find the tradition here of discussing fellow posters in the third person somewhat disconcerting! I’m not objecting – it’s actually quite interesting.”

How else is it to be done, but in the third person? And, on what ground could you possibly object (I mean, even aside from the question of you “I-ness”)? Objective morality?

How about the grounds of rudeness and lack of integrity?  If you've got something to say to someone in the discussion, say it.  Publicly whispering behind your hands to each other is simply a reinforcement of your in group bonds and a strong indication that you yourself need reassurance.  Does big, bad Elizabeth scare you, Ilion?

She should.

Date: 2011/07/16 08:22:28, Link
Author: Patrick
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 16 2011,09:01)
Quote (Patrick @ July 16 2011,07:33)
Ilion asks a question that needs an answer:
 
Quote
EL “I do find the tradition here of discussing fellow posters in the third person somewhat disconcerting! I’m not objecting – it’s actually quite interesting.”

How else is it to be done, but in the third person? And, on what ground could you possibly object (I mean, even aside from the question of you “I-ness”)? Objective morality?

How about the grounds of rudeness and lack of integrity?  If you've got something to say to someone in the discussion, say it.  Publicly whispering behind your hands to each other is simply a reinforcement of your in group bonds and a strong indication that you yourself need reassurance.  Does big, bad Elizabeth scare you, Ilion?

She should.

I've routinely used the third person to refer to an interlocutor. My reasons are to prevent any ambiguity about who is being addressed for one and to make the exchange more easily comprehended by third parties. I don't do so in private correspondence because neither of those would hold there.

There are plenty of good grounds to critique the UD crew. I don't think "use of the third person" ranks among them.

If you're addressing the points being made by the person, it's not an issue.  I'm referring to ad hominems like this from Ilion:
Quote
Mung @ 69: “Elizabeth, you’re a strange bird indeed. One really has to wonder to what extent you should be taken seriously, if at all.”

Mung, you’re much to nice. The answer is “no” … and I figured it out a long time ago.

And this, two comments later, from Mung:
Quote
Yeah, I know you did. And of course I agree.

I really do think her true calling is writing children’s fiction.

That's just gutless and ungentlemanly.

Date: 2011/07/17 17:15:48, Link
Author: Patrick
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ July 17 2011,15:46)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 17 2011,20:13)
Unpleasant Blowhard withdrew from his conversation with Liz Liddle, and here's why:
   
Quote
I am at the point where I just don’t know what else to say to you…Throughout the whole time I have felt like I was talking to someone who always had something slightly else in mind, almost condescendingly so at times, as if they thought they already knew the material and were just politely pacing their time...I have come to the end of my contributions in trying to describe the phenomena of information…If this conversation should move past this stage and return to something productive, then I may elect to rejoin…With that said, I thank you for the talk and bid you farewell.

Lizzie takes note, and wonders if anyone else wants to come out and play:
   
Quote
Well, as Upright BiPed has lost interest, is anyone else interested in taking up my challenge?

Upright Blowhard takes great umbrage!! He did not loose interest!!
   
Quote
Dr Liddle, your characterization of my involvement in this conversation as “having lost interest” is not only patently opportunistic, it is also intellectually repugnant...In truth, my wife and I have had a medical emergency with our 21 year old daughter for the past two days, and is it happens, concerning myself with some tomography and a spinal tap was slightly higher on my list than debating with you.

So, UB, you made all that other stuff up?

WTF? I mean, WTF!?!?!?!

"I'm going away because I lost interest"

"Well, since he lost interest..."

"WHY DOES YOU SAYZ I LOST INTERSET!!!one"


The part about the sick daughter might be genuine, and if so I wish her and her parents all the best of health and strenght in a difficult moment. But this up there is just meh!

This is just the first iteration of an infinite cycle.  Upright BiPed will wait for one of two outcomes.  If some other UDiot actually gives Elizabeth Liddle an operational definition of information (unlikely, but possible), she'll use it to show that Hey!  Surprise! known evolutionary mechanisms can create it.  At that point Upright BiPed will return to claim that of course, that wasn't what he means by "information" and he'll try to get Elizabeth to chase him around again until he's cornered and leaves.

Down the other, more likely, trouser leg of time, no operational definition will be forthcoming from any UDiot, Upright BiPed will bide his time for a bit, then he'll return claiming that Elizabeth ignored perfectly good definitions (which he will, oddly, never be able to reference), again attempting to get her to chase him for specifics.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

This is the one sense in which Intelligent Design Creationism is scientific -- it can be used to make testable predictions (unless it turns out that Elizabeth's patience isn't as infinite as it seems).

Date: 2011/07/18 08:28:39, Link
Author: Patrick
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 18 2011,09:07)
Elizabeth Liddle with calculate Joe's CSI for him, if he can define it:

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-the-csi-concept-well-founded-mathematically-and-can-it-be-applied-to-the-real-world-giv


ing-real-and-useful-numbers/#comment-390808]http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-390808[/URL]

 
Quote
38

Elizabeth Liddle

07/18/2011

7:04 am
Joseph: I’d love to.

But we’d still need an operational definition of CSI – I believe vjtorley had a go, perhaps someone could link to it.



Just prior to Elizabeth's comment in that thread, [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-the-csi-concept-well-founded-mathematically-and-can-it-be-applied-to-the-real-world-giv

ing-real-and-useful-numbers/#comment-390803]gpuccio claims that his CSI variant is based on empirical evidence[/URL].  He seems to have conveniently forgotten that he was not only unable to calculate his metric over four threads on Mark Frank's blog, he changed the definition several times during the conversation.

I thought that gpuccio was one of the more intelligent and honest UD denizens.  Obviously I was wrong.

Date: 2011/07/18 09:20:13, Link
Author: Patrick
Mung demonstrates that vaunted UD civility:
Quote
I’ve suspected for some time that many of Elizabeth’s posts are fueled by a certain chemical not known for it’s contribution to rational thought.

And tgpeeler isn't to be outdone:
Quote
I don’t think doveton’s capable of serious abstract thought and I’m almost positive EL is not.

I'm sure that Clive Hayden will be right along to moderate these two halfwits* for their behavior.  After all, saying the same thing about kairosfocus or bornagain77, even though well supported by the evidence, would get one banned.  Surely there isn't a double standard at UD.

  • The math suggests that together Mung and tgpeeler make up a full wit, but I suspect the correct operator is multiplication, not addition.
  • Date: 2011/07/18 10:41:43, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (damitall @ July 18 2011,11:06)
    Meanwhile Gpoochyo defines "conscious intelligent being" as - conscious intelligent being!
    Rigorous!

    In the next comment, he defines the designer into existence:
    Quote
    We define design as the purposeful imprint of some consciously represented form from a conscious intelligent being to a material object.

    It's now impossible for design to exist without a conscious, intelligent agent.  gpuccio wins!

    What a putz.

    Date: 2011/07/18 10:47:47, Link
    Author: Patrick
    gpuccio is mistaken about CSI:
    Quote
    I would like to briefly explain why I use the concept of dFSCI instead of the more vast concept of CSI.

    CSI isn't vast, gpuccio.  Half-vast, certainly.

    Date: 2011/07/18 11:50:01, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (dvunkannon @ July 18 2011,11:58)
    Quote (Patrick @ July 18 2011,10:20)
    Mung demonstrates that vaunted UD civility:
     
    Quote
    I’ve suspected for some time that many of Elizabeth’s posts are fueled by a certain chemical not known for it’s contribution to rational thought.

    And tgpeeler isn't to be outdone:
     
    Quote
    I don’t think doveton’s capable of serious abstract thought and I’m almost positive EL is not.

    I'm sure that Clive Hayden will be right along to moderate these two halfwits* for their behavior.  After all, saying the same thing about kairosfocus or bornagain77, even though well supported by the evidence, would get one banned.  Surely there isn't a double standard at UD.

  • The math suggests that together Mung and tgpeeler make up a full wit, but I suspect the correct operator is multiplication, not addition.

  • If the operator is multiplication, one wit * one wit = one wit. But that means each of them _is_ a wit. Perhaps you were thinking that twit * halfwit = wit.

    I think the correct formula is halfwit * halfwit = quarterwit.  This agrees with the empirical evidence that every additional UDiot in a thread reduces the herd's intelligence by at least 50%.

    Date: 2011/07/18 18:21:27, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 18 2011,17:35)
    Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ July 18 2011,13:43)
    Quote (Patrick @ July 18 2011,09:20)
    Mung demonstrates that vaunted UD civility:
     
    Quote
    I’ve suspected for some time that many of Elizabeth’s posts are fueled by a certain chemical not known for it’s contribution to rational thought.

    And tgpeeler isn't to be outdone:
     
    Quote
    I don’t think doveton’s capable of serious abstract thought and I’m almost positive EL is not.

    I'm sure that Clive Hayden will be right along to moderate these two halfwits* for their behavior.  After all, saying the same thing about kairosfocus or bornagain77, even though well supported by the evidence, would get one banned.  Surely there isn't a double standard at UD.

  • The math suggests that together Mung and tgpeeler make up a full wit, but I suspect the correct operator is multiplication, not addition.

  • halfwit * halfwit = quarter wit

    Can we work something out with the square wit of 2?

    Careful. With these geniuses a divide by zero error is always a real possibility.

    We could calculate the time required for the wit to asymptotically approach zero.  That would, of course, be the t(wit) function.

    Date: 2011/07/18 20:16:10, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (khan @ July 18 2011,20:36)
    Quote (Patrick @ July 18 2011,10:20)
    Mung demonstrates that vaunted UD civility:
     
    Quote
    I’ve suspected for some time that many of Elizabeth’s posts are fueled by a certain chemical not known for it’s contribution to rational thought.

    And tgpeeler isn't to be outdone:
     
    Quote
    I don’t think doveton’s capable of serious abstract thought and I’m almost positive EL is not.

    I'm sure that Clive Hayden will be right along to moderate these two halfwits* for their behavior.  After all, saying the same thing about kairosfocus or bornagain77, even though well supported by the evidence, would get one banned.  Surely there isn't a double standard at UD.

  • The math suggests that together Mung and tgpeeler make up a full wit, but I suspect the correct operator is multiplication, not addition.

  • Is that the testosterone apostrophe?

    Hey, I might be old enough to have teenagers but my testosterone isn't apostropheing yet!

    Date: 2011/07/19 13:18:00, Link
    Author: Patrick
    JonathanM and Casey Luskin are urinating on PZ Myers' ankle over at Evolution News & Views.  It looks like someone inadvertently left commenting on briefly but then turned it off.  Am I just overlooking the magic button?

    Date: 2011/07/21 10:41:23, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Kristine @ July 21 2011,09:20)
    I have been expecting the YECs/biblical literalists denoucing the IDists/OECs for a long time. Ever since 2005, when I first made this prediction over at Red State Rabble.

    I look forward to the Big Tent ™ becoming the Big Octagon.

    Date: 2011/07/21 10:52:10, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Dennis Jones has been mentioned a couple of times recently on UD.  His blog posts are even more simplistically idiotic than the usual intelligent design creationist fare, which makes me wonder why Mrs. O'Leary has latched onto him.  Could he be one of the regular UD nyms?

    Date: 2011/07/21 14:20:57, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Kristine @ July 21 2011,13:08)
    Quote (Patrick @ July 21 2011,10:52)
    Dennis Jones has been mentioned a couple of times recently on UD.  His blog posts are even more simplistically idiotic than the usual intelligent design creationist fare, which makes me wonder why Mrs. O'Leary has latched onto him.  Could he be one of the regular UD nyms?

    That makes you wonder why Denyse latched on to him? :)

    Well, not when you put it that way.  ;-)

    Date: 2011/07/21 17:38:29, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2011,16:53)
    Recordkeeping the ID Way.

    Bachmann is a little on the sane side for Barry, isn't she?

    Date: 2011/07/21 18:16:19, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Badger3k @ July 21 2011,19:08)
    Quote (Patrick @ July 21 2011,17:38)
     
    Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2011,16:53)
    Recordkeeping the ID Way.

    Bachmann is a little on the sane side for Barry, isn't she?

    Well, that depends on whether she is having her migraines with auras, or talking to her exorcist.  

    I think I know what happened - Bully was trying to calculate some FSCI on those donations, and the numbers didn't add up, so he decided not to list them - it could have been a false positive, after all, so why report them as donations?

    Maybe he let Joe do the counting.  There was no mention of videos or long-winded screeds, so it wasn't Batshit of Gordo.

    Many Individual Conservatives Helping Elect Leaders Everywhere

    I think they may have let kairosfocus help with the name.

    Date: 2011/07/21 18:21:39, Link
    Author: Patrick
    It gets better.  Barry misspelled Bachmann's first name in the original filings for the PAC.

    Date: 2011/07/22 13:22:57, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Richardthughes @ July 22 2011,14:07)
    Given the recent, prolonged non-calculation of CSI, or even operational definition of it, Dembski finally wades in:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....plosion

    And shows he's still shit at culture war.

    I'd hate to think that I have less of a sense of humor than Bill Dembski, but I really don't get it.  Is he laughing at the misspelling?

    Date: 2011/07/22 21:19:45, Link
    Author: Patrick
    While less offensive than those in the rape discussion, Ilion makes his bid for UD poster child:
    Quote
    “(whom I greatly admire for her respectful dissent from our dissent from evolutionary orthodoxy)”

    I think you have a strange definition of “respectful” — she doesn’t have enought respect for the people here to argue in an honest fashion, and she’ll lie to your face in her “arguments”, but she does avoid the frothing-at-the-mouth dishing out of insults that is the more typical behavior of DarwinDefenders.

    Ilion,

    You are a liar and a cad.  Your statements are utterly unsubstantiated and I strongly suspect that you are far too cowardly to make them in a face to face conversation.  The combination of ignorance, pomposity, rudeness, and profoundly unjustified arrogance you routinely present make you eminently well suited to Uncommon Descent.

    Even in that cesspool of craven imbecility, your abusiveness towards someone who is so clearly your intellectual and moral superior stands out.

    I look forward to meeting you one day.

    Sincerely,

    Patrick

    Date: 2011/07/23 07:06:09, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Badger3k @ July 23 2011,00:55)
    Quote (CeilingCat @ July 22 2011,21:53)
    Dembski contemplates the multiverse:    
    Quote
    There are corners of an infinite universe where counterparts to me cannot do arithmetic and yet sit down at a computer and write probabilistic tracts about intelligent design.

    I think he's right about that.  I think he could equally accurately write:    
    Quote
    There are corners of an infinite universe where counterparts to me cannot understand evolution and yet sit down at a computer and write probabilistic tracts about intelligent design.

    There are corners of an infinite universe where counterparts to me cannot understand probability and yet sit down at a computer and write probabilistic tracts about intelligent design.

    There are corners of an infinite universe where counterparts to me cannot believe in evolution and so sit down at a computer and write probabilistic tracts about intelligent design.

    There are corners of an infinite universe where counterparts to me haven't a clue about much of anything and yet sit down at a computer and write probabilistic tracts about intelligent design.

    There are corners of an infinite universe where counterparts to me cannot do arithmetic and yet sit down at a computer and write fart videos.

    I'm sure there are many more corners of an infinite universe where Dembski relentlessly and enthusiastically gets it all wrong.

    Does this mean that if we have an infinite amount of Dembskis, we might actually see him do some research someday?

    Even in an infinite universe, not everything is possible.
    Quote
    There is nowhere, however huge the multiverse is, where Sam Vimes Bill Dembski as he is now has murdered Lady Sybil done any scientific research.

    Terry Pratchett knows all.

    Date: 2011/07/23 14:54:51, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (sparc @ July 23 2011,15:37)
    Quote (Seversky @ July 23 2011,10:44)
    I'm waiting for DeNews to report on the tragedy in Norway and explain how a good Christian fundamentalist was driven to commit these appalling acts by the godless secularism that reigns over there, all of which is traceable (Weikart will no doubt be able to help with the details) back to Darwin.

    Isn't that Barry Arrinton's specialty?

    He must be busy inventing another innocent-creationist-girl vs. evil-evolutionist case to win.

    Date: 2011/07/24 12:36:16, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 24 2011,10:54)
    Lewontin!

    Again quotemined, as KF once again omitted the last two sentences of Lewontin's statement.

    Gordon, you are one perseverative gasbag.

    MathGrrl wrote to Dr. Lewontin after she raised the isssue with kairosfocus and Dr. Lewontin was kind enough to reply to a pseudonym.  I don't have explicit permission to post the full response, but he did say
    Quote
    You are entirely correct that the added sentences must be added as an explication of a materialist understanding of nature.

    If anyone wishes to confirm this with Dr. Lewontin, the email exchange took place on June 15th of this year.

    (Did you see what I did there, Barry?  Providing enough detail for independent corroboration?  You might want to try that sometime.)

    Date: 2011/07/24 13:33:18, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Seversky @ July 24 2011,14:18)
     
    Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ July 24 2011,13:11)
       
    Quote (Seversky @ July 24 2011,19:04)
       
    Quote (socle @ July 24 2011,12:37)
    junkdnaforlife:
             
    Quote
    Most cultures around the world generally find the design argument compelling. It with primarily white men that live in the US and England that get their panties in a bunch over it. Take a look at the new atheists from an ethnicity and economic perspective, basically they are all a bunch of well off cracker ass honkeys from the US and England.

    Ah, racism rears its ugly head at UD.  I wonder how many of the regulars will disavow such sentiments and how many will argue that, since the comments are about whites, they cannot be racist.

    Hey, I ressent that! I'm neither USacan or Englandican!

    That's okay.  Nobody's perfect.

    Although Elizabeth Liddle appears close, and getting closer with bon mots like these:
     
    Quote
    I like my arguments naked.

    Date: 2011/07/25 09:15:45, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Hermagoras @ July 25 2011,09:48)
    I'm thinking that UD's reaction to the Oslo Norway shootings is a new low, at least in terms of the rapidity with which they try to make sickening, wholly wrong connections.  Am I wrong, or have they sunk this low before?

    Edited for geography.

    That's hard to measure, given the depths they routinely plumb there.  This seems to be just a natural dip in the bottom of the sewer in which they spend their time crawling.  They'll be back to demeaning rape victims, aggressively failing to support their claims, lying about their evidence, and violating their own civility rules soon enough.

    Date: 2011/07/25 09:19:08, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Patrick @ July 22 2011,22:19)
    While less offensive than those in the rape discussion, Ilion makes his bid for UD poster child:
     
    Quote
    “(whom I greatly admire for her respectful dissent from our dissent from evolutionary orthodoxy)”

    I think you have a strange definition of “respectful” — she doesn’t have enought respect for the people here to argue in an honest fashion, and she’ll lie to your face in her “arguments”, but she does avoid the frothing-at-the-mouth dishing out of insults that is the more typical behavior of DarwinDefenders.

    Ilion,

    You are a liar and a cad.  Your statements are utterly unsubstantiated and I strongly suspect that you are far too cowardly to make them in a face to face conversation.  The combination of ignorance, pomposity, rudeness, and profoundly unjustified arrogance you routinely present make you eminently well suited to Uncommon Descent.

    Even in that cesspool of craven imbecility, your abusiveness towards someone who is so clearly your intellectual and moral superior stands out.

    I look forward to meeting you one day.

    Sincerely,

    Patrick

    I found out that Ilion has a blog, so I posted the above there and invited him to defend his libel in an open forum.  He banned me.

    Clive and Barry teach their little dishonest cowards well.

    Date: 2011/07/26 07:47:24, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Robin @ July 26 2011,08:31)
    Of course, that explanation doesn't much change the perplexing, head-cocked-to-one-side-like-a-dog-who-doesn't-understand look I'm wearing here.

    Cracked.com can help with the visual:

    Date: 2011/07/26 10:52:09, Link
    Author: Patrick
    [Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

    Quote (Ftk @ July 26 2011,11:45)
    This is in no way equivalent to a mere "poster".

    Really?  Looks like a poster to me.
    Quote
    I stand by my position that a bunch of sexual deviants proudly and publically displaying their way of life is no less disgusting than the act of a pedophile.

    Let's see, on the one hand we have mentally competent adults choosing to participate in mutually consensual activity and on the other hand we have violent physical and emotional abuse of a child.  Obviously they are exactly the same.

    Is your stupidity the cause of or does it result from your bigotry?

    Date: 2011/07/26 11:09:58, Link
    Author: Patrick
    [Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

    Quote (Louis @ July 26 2011,12:02)
    *Or mouths but she dodged that question last time...like so many others.

    Oh, I'd love to hear the answer to that one.  Purely for academic reasons, of course.  Nothing prurient here, move along.

    Date: 2011/07/26 11:37:07, Link
    Author: Patrick
    [Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

    Quote (Ftk @ July 26 2011,12:33)
    Im "losing badly" ..  rofl...omg, let's hope not.  I'd hate to see a bunch of raving perverts parading around the streets 24/7.  Let's remember what the article was about, ~please~.

    Ftk,

    What this is about now is your statement that "I stand by my position that a bunch of sexual deviants proudly and publically displaying their way of life is no less disgusting than the act of a pedophile."

    Focusing just on that for a moment, do you honestly not see a difference between voluntary behavior among consenting adults and violent physical and emotional abuse of a child?

    Date: 2011/07/26 11:46:33, Link
    Author: Patrick
    [Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

    Quote (Ftk @ July 26 2011,12:41)
    Quote (Patrick @ July 26 2011,11:37)
    Quote (Ftk @ July 26 2011,12:33)
    Im "losing badly" ..  rofl...omg, let's hope not.  I'd hate to see a bunch of raving perverts parading around the streets 24/7.  Let's remember what the article was about, ~please~.

    Ftk,

    What this is about now is your statement that "I stand by my position that a bunch of sexual deviants proudly and publically displaying their way of life is no less disgusting than the act of a pedophile."

    Focusing just on that for a moment, do you honestly not see a difference between voluntary behavior among consenting adults and violent physical and emotional abuse of a child?

    Um, I addressed that...go back and read.  I said I grant you the fact that the child has no option.  That is a crime.  So, in that sense, one act is a crime, the other is tolerated.  They are all extremely deviant acts, and as I said, you can prioritize. I have no interest in that.  

    Anyone who thinks sex is a sport for the deviant mind is responsible for promoting stds, disease, unwanted pregnancy, fucked up relationship, etc., etc.

    Are you asserting that the two acts are morally equivalent, by your standards?

    Date: 2011/07/26 11:59:19, Link
    Author: Patrick
    [Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 26 2011,12:52)
    Quote (carlsonjok @ July 26 2011,12:49)
     
    Quote (Ftk @ July 26 2011,11:31)
    Im vile because Im not the one out displaying my sexual mannerisms like a fucking lunatic while parading and flaunting what I do in the bedroom.

    Actually, everytime you go out in public with your children, you flaunt what you do in the bedroom.

    For example:



    Who can not look at this picture and see those two adults getting all grunting and sweaty doggy style?  

    Amirite?  

    Guys?

    Testing...testing...is this on?

    doggy style is an abomination you pervert!

    Plus, I see no puppies in the picture.
    </old-joke>

    Date: 2011/07/26 16:37:46, Link
    Author: Patrick
    [Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

    Quote (Ftk @ July 26 2011,17:25)
    It is my personal opinion, there is nothing less deviant about these *acts* than the *act* of a pedofilia.

    By equating the "deviance" of harming a child with that of consensual, albeit public, acts between consenting adults are you saying that the two behaviors are morally equivalent?  If so, by what standard?  If not, what exactly do you mean by "deviant"?

    Date: 2011/07/26 16:41:29, Link
    Author: Patrick
    [Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

    Quote (dvunkannon @ July 26 2011,17:33)
    I realize I'm a couple of pages behind on this FtK race to the bottom, but it was my impression that she was equating a _picture_ to an _act_of_violence_. Not the acts or preferences implied by the picture, but the picture itself. That is certainly what WND is wound up about, that the picture riffs on da Vinci's painting.

    Which is even stupiderer than what folks are currently tagging her for, but y'all shouldn't let her walk away from arch stupidity.

    Good catch.  I'd also like to hear what you have to say about that, Ftk.

    Date: 2011/07/26 18:43:55, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Seversky @ July 26 2011,18:44)
    Even Elizabeth Liddle's remarkable tolerance has its limits:

     
    Quote
    Now I’ve had one too many accusations of lying from you Mung, so this is the last time I will respond to your posts for a while.

    I don’t mind if people disagree with me, or point out errors, even if I disagree that they are errors. But I don’t lie, as I have told you, and you have no reason to think otherwise.

    So we will take a break from our conversations.

    Peace

    Lizzie

    The next step, as I'm sure she is well aware, will be for them to crow that she has run away from the debate because she cannot cope with their arguments.  

    This is also further confirmation, if any were needed, of the moderators somewhat flexible notion of civility (Hi, Clive)

    Mung is just part of that 95% of lawyers who make the others look bad.

    Date: 2011/07/26 21:24:51, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Mung's head is spinning around while he spews pea soup.  It looks like Elizabeth Liddle's refusal to put up with his ridiculous and insulting behavior has reverted him back to toddlerhood, complete with tantrums.

    Date: 2011/07/27 17:16:49, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Elizabeth Liddle summarizes the core flaw of all ID creationist big number calculations in two succinct comments.
    Quote
    The question is not (I would argue): “how likely is this pattern (say, a living cell) to have happened by chance at least once given the entire number of events in this universe?”, but rather: “given what has happened in this universe so far, how likely is this pattern (this living cell) to have arisen?”

    And to calculate that, we need to know something of the contingencies that led to that point.

    Dembski’s CSI concept does not even attempt to estimate this. And, I’d argue, that this is exactly what evolutionary biologists attempt to discover!

    Followed by
    Quote
    Yes, we do have to “go on the basis of the laws of chemistry and physics” but they are a given in this universe.

    The probablity of life given all possible physicses and chemistries may be very low. But the probability of life given this physics and chemistry might be quite high.

    Dembski seems to be saying that confronted with something like a living cell, we can infer that it did not come by a series of independent random events.

    Which nobody claims.

    What people claim is that it came about through a series of highly dependent – contingent- events. Just as, given the constants of this universe, iron was virtually inevitable, life may also have been virtually inevitable.

    If I remember correctly, Elsberry and Shallit noted this back in 2003 and a number of people, including MathGrrl, have pointed it out since then.  Perhaps Lizzie will be the one who manages to get the UD denizens to understand it.

    Hey, a guy's gotta have dreams....

    Date: 2011/07/28 13:21:31, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Eric Anderson assures us that  intelligent design creationism is scientific:
     
    Quote
    It is totally based on observable evidence.

    Which I'm sure will be produced real soon now.
     
    Quote
    People are looking — almost everywhere we look in life we see the kinds of systems/CSI that ID argues is a reliable indicator of intelligent activity.

    Along with a definition of CSI and some example calculations.

    Date: 2011/07/28 16:15:33, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Robin @ July 28 2011,14:58)
    Quote (Patrick @ July 28 2011,13:21)
    Eric Anderson assures us that  intelligent design creationism is scientific:
         
    Quote
    It is totally based on observable evidence.

    Which I'm sure will be produced real soon now.

    What are talking about - he provided it:
       
    Quote
    People are looking — almost everywhere we look in life we see the kinds of systems/CSI that ID argues is a reliable indicator of intelligent activity.

    See? They see ID everywhere - that's the observable evidence! :D
     
    Quote
    Along with a definition of CSI and some example calculations.

    Pish tosh! That would be that "pathetic level of detail" that ID isn't about. ID is not, afterall, a mechanistic theory. So there!

    Holy empathy, Robin!

    Do you need a lie down after channeling Dembski like that?

    Date: 2011/07/29 14:46:37, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Doveton for the lulz:
    Quote
    Lastyearon,

    Quote
    You guys clearly don’t understand either the argument that evolution violates the 2nd law, or the correct counter argument that the earth is not a closed system. No big deal.

    However, when I realize I don’t know much about a particular topic, especially a topic I’m interested in, I try to learn enough about the subject to form a valid opinion. I don’t display my ignorance in front of thousands of people, like you guys do.

    Oh now c’mon, Lastyear…I think you’re exaggerating a little. You should rethink your claims in light of the evidence presented hereon.

    You really think they are displaying ignorance in front of thousands of people?

    They both may have tweaked the censorsmoderators' noses a bit too hard, even at the kinder, gentler UD, though.

    Date: 2011/07/29 20:46:09, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 29 2011,18:53)
    Sayeth Lizzie:
    Quote
    I’m going to set this up on my brand new blog. I’ll post the URL, and anyone is welcome to join me there, and/or comment on it here. That way we can keep the thread open for as long as we want, and I can post updates (if we get that far) once I get going.

    No way Blowhard dares venture from the pouch to discuss this further. In the light of day, so to speak. No fucking way.

    (Wow, another prediction!)

    I'm going to piggyback on your prediction and predict that one or more of Ilion, Mung, and Upright BiPed will participate briefly on Lizzie's blog but, when about to be logically forced to make a testable claim, will retreat back to UD whining about the "abusive Darwinists" who make it impossible for IDCists to participate outside of the echo chamber.

    Shortly thereafter they will assert victory and cavort about UD, slapping each others' sweaty, hairy backs and grunting happily.

    Date: 2011/07/29 21:04:32, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Hermagoras @ July 29 2011,21:54)
    It's a tight contest, but I'm pretty sure Mung is taking the lead for "Biggest Asshole on UD" for July 2011.

    Yeah, I realized while reading that thread that I haven't meditated enough this week.  I know that Dr. Liddle is a woman full grown and quite capable of standing up for herself, but it's hard to separate oneself from one's upbringing where being a gentleman meant something.

    I feel an overwhelming urge to vigorously teach Mung, Ilion, and Upright BiPed some manners.

    Date: 2011/07/30 11:25:17, Link
    Author: Patrick
    bornagain77 [URL=Elizabeth, of course you will disagree since lack of integrity towards evidence is a primary characteristic of your debating style!!!]hops on the bandwagon[/URL]:
    Quote
    Elizabeth, of course you will disagree since lack of integrity towards evidence is a primary characteristic of your debating style!!!

    Three exclamation points, it must be true.  No one with that command of punctuation could possibly be a sanctimonious, dishonest, rude little coward.

    I would really like to see some of these jerks make similar statements in face to face conversations.

    Date: 2011/07/30 11:26:06, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Sorry, here's the correct link.

    Date: 2011/07/30 13:46:48, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Kristine @ July 30 2011,14:03)
    UD is dead. Do you think the UDlosers are immature now? Wait another three years, after they have been pickling in their bitterness for some time.

    Ah, I love a story with a happy ending!

    Date: 2011/07/30 15:10:06, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (J-Dog @ July 30 2011,15:26)
    Quote (Patrick @ July 30 2011,13:46)
    Quote (Kristine @ July 30 2011,14:03)
    UD is dead. Do you think the UDlosers are immature now? Wait another three years, after they have been pickling in their bitterness for some time.

    Ah, I love a story with a happy ending!

    I can't wait for the sequel! :)

    I see it as something like Bambi vs Godzilla, except with Kristine's foot in a fashionable pump, scraping IDCists off after accidentally stepping in the UD mud puddle.

    Date: 2011/07/31 12:23:55, Link
    Author: Patrick
    William Roache hits Mung where it hurts:
    Quote
    Mung,
    Quote
    Don’t hold your breath waiting for that retraction. It could happen, but right now it’s not looking very likely.

    Indeed. As we can watch before us you twist “facts” to suit yourself and as such there is never any need to retract what has now become true.

    It’s obvious to all that your interactions are not intended to expand anybody’s understanding but rather to score points in some pointless game you are playing. A game that will sooner rather then later end up with just one player.

    I expect you are used to solo activities however.

    Date: 2011/07/31 12:35:06, Link
    Author: Patrick
    material.infantacy admits to intellectual cowardice:
    Quote
    Elizabeth, you seem very sweet and I hope you’ll understand if I don’t come over and register. I prefer the safe, warm environment under the wings of our loving and diligent moderators.

    Is it considered an indication of intellectual integrity to be open about having none?

    Date: 2011/08/02 10:21:22, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Louis @ Aug. 02 2011,07:58)
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 02 2011,12:10)
    StephenB:
       
    Quote
    Hence, no atheist ever scrupled at the prospect of having a lustful thought, or regretted using his wife as a sex object, or wept because he failed to love his enemies.

    We do marvel at the stunted, tormented erotic landscape of an individual who "scruples" at even the prospect of experiencing ordinary sexual interest.

    That is twisted. But Stephen always did write like his boxers are on backward.

    a) How does one use one's wife a s a sex object? Please give details, preferably with diagrams.

    b) Does one's wife enjoy being used as a sex object and how can one tell?

    c) Is one's wife permitted to use one as a sex object or is this  one way prohibition?

    d) Precisely what is a "sex object"? Can one purchase them from reputable merchants and still be a gentleman?

    Enquiring minds want to know.

    Louis

    One must learn how to treat oneself as a sex object before being able to properly treat one's beloved as such.
    </tantra>

    Date: 2011/08/02 12:20:35, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Todd Wood confirms that Elizabeth Liddle has better reading comprehension than Mung.

    Hail Eris, a creationist worthy of respect.  Please excuse me while I rearrange my prejudices.

    Date: 2011/08/03 12:14:52, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Ilion almost makes a valid statement
    Quote
    Even KF – who is a real trooper about denying he sees dishonesty when he sees it – has limits to how much dishonesty he will put up with.

    but blows it at the end.  To date, kairosfocus hasn't demonstrated any limits to his own dishonesty.

    Keep trying, Ilion, one day you'll make an honest, valid, correct statement at UD.  I'm rooting for you (although not in the Australian sense).

    Date: 2011/08/03 14:51:17, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Robin @ Aug. 03 2011,14:28)
    Damn...gotta go get a new irony meter. I the midst of a lengthy screed, Gordo insists:
     
    Quote
    I remind you — again, and despite your evident swallowing of the “creationism in a cheap tuxedo” slanderous talking point — that UD is not a theology blog nor primarily about debating particular topics in ethics.

    As if on cue, Mung chimes in with John 18:36 on the very next post in response to a question about transcendent morality.

    More evidence that Mung's real goal is to keep the rich organic matter in turbulence.

    Date: 2011/08/03 16:50:05, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Kristine @ Aug. 03 2011,17:25)
    That is why we do not consistently see a "big tent" arise with ID creationism and YECs

    I was wondering where you were going with this.
    Quote
    - there is still too much jockeying.

    Or the wrong kind of horsing around.

    Date: 2011/08/04 09:34:07, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Sitting down for a little crazy with my morning coffee, I see that kairosfocus is upset about his oil of ad hominem soaked strawman of methodological naturalism, complete with his normal Lewontin quote mine.  Two thoughts come immediately to mind.

    First, he never explains how one might use the scientific method, or otherwise support one's claims, without methodological naturalism.

    Second, it must be refreshing to care so little about one's readers and one's own reputation that editing and rewriting are foreign concepts.  Such a blasé attitude toward comprehensibility certainly allows for far more volume per unit time.

    Date: 2011/08/04 14:39:01, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Barry "Free Speech" Arrington flails at science:
     
    Quote
    Hypothesis: CSI and IC have never been directly observed to have arisen though chance or mechanical necessity or a combination of the two.

    Shockingly, Barry fails to define his terms or to show how one might calculate CSI for a real biological artifact.  I'm sure he'll rectify that oversight real soon now.  Even without that pathetic level of detail, his hypothesis is readily rejected based on the 2006 Science paper
    Evolution of hormone-receptor complexity by molecular exploitation
    by Bridgham, Carroll, and Thornton.  This is summarized in a press release for anyone who can't download the full paper.

    And yes, I saw Barry's weasel words "directly observed."  He needs to learn that scientists are more concerned with correspondence with reality than are lawyers.

    Date: 2011/08/04 21:24:56, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 04 2011,20:55)
    In a thread headed 'To Save Time Barry Argues Both Sides' Bully has an imaginary argument with Elizabeth Liddle. Guess who wins?

    Hey Barry (yes, it's obvious you read here):  I'm smarter than you, bigger than you, meaner than you, and at the moment drunker than you.  When I'm sober, I'll still be willing to kick your ass.  Fuck you and your abusive behavior.

    Date: 2011/08/05 10:02:14, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 05 2011,00:56)
     
    Quote (Patrick @ Aug. 04 2011,22:24)
       
    Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 04 2011,20:55)
    In a thread headed 'To Save Time Barry Argues Both Sides' Bully has an imaginary argument with Elizabeth Liddle. Guess who wins?

    Hey Barry (yes, it's obvious you read here):  I'm smarter than you, bigger than you, meaner than you, and at the moment drunker than you.  When I'm sober, I'll still be willing to kick your ass.  Fuck you and your abusive behavior.

    you aren't the only drunk lol

    Hmm, there seems to have been some attitude in the bottom of that snifter of calvados.  It couldn't have been the effeminate white wine beforehand.

    In any case, my apologies for the vulgarity, although I stand by the sentiment.  I manage to have polite and constructive discussions in every other online forum, despite the strongest political disagreements (Hi, Hermagoras!).  Even when flaming, I try to remember that the words I'm replying to come from actual people and write as I would speak.  The UD crew get right up my nose in large part due to their cowardice -- they'd never dare be so rude face to face as they are routinely in their echo chamber (I can only hope they were raised better than to treat women in real life the way they do Elizabeth Liddle online).

    Then again, perhaps I'm applying the wrong set of societal norms on that anti-intellectual cesspit.  Maybe they act so obnoxiously there because they don't take their claims any more seriously than does the reality based community.  Is UD pure street theater?

    Date: 2011/08/06 13:58:56, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Barry "Dog Botherer" Arrington comes up with yet another definition of CSI:
    Quote
    irreducible complexity, which is a subset of CSI

    I'm reminded of the story of the two little boys who find a ten dollar bill on the street and go into a nearby shop to spend it.  The first little boy is busily loading his arms with candy when the second little boy comes up with a box of tampons.  "Why would we want those?" asks the first boy.  The second boy excitedly points at the box and explains "Look, we can go swimming and horseback riding and bicycling . . . ."

    CSI:  Protection for those days when the flow of reality is just too heavy.

    Date: 2011/08/06 19:17:43, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Who wants to work for Bill?
    Quote
    Hi UncommonDescent Readers: I have a request. I need one or more freelance writers to work for pay on short research articles (ca. 1000 to 3000 words) related to higher-ed. Some of this work will touch on ID but most will not. Contact me at the email address on the homepage of www.designinference.com to learn more. –Bill D.

    I notice that he is careful to exclude kairosfocus by word count.

    Date: 2011/08/07 06:04:39, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 07 2011,03:58)
    Quote (Patrick @ Aug. 06 2011,13:58)
    Barry "Dog Botherer" Arrington comes up with yet another definition of CSI:
     
    Quote
    irreducible complexity, which is a subset of CSI

    I'm reminded of the story of the two little boys who find a ten dollar bill on the street and go into a nearby shop to spend it.  The first little boy is busily loading his arms with candy when the second little boy comes up with a box of tampons.  "Why would we want those?" asks the first boy.  The second boy excitedly points at the box and explains "Look, we can go swimming and horseback riding and bicycling . . . ."

    CSI:  Protection for those days when the flow of reality is just too heavy.

    The subset of CSI notion goes back to Dembski's "No Free Lunch" and his bacterial flagellum example there. What he "calculates" there is not aimed at being an example of applied CSI, but rather is supposed to be a demonstration that IC fits within CSI. That's why he skips over any attempt to apply his then-current rules for specifications, relying on Behe's identification of bacterial flagella as being IC.

    Interesting.  I thought it was a straightforward category error on Barry's part.  IC is a claim about the structure and possibly history of a pattern, but CSI is supposedly about probabilities or information or something measured in bits.

    I need to stop trying to find consistency in IDCist assertions.

    Date: 2011/08/08 18:05:24, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Mrs. O'Leary brings up the Shroud of Turin, much to bornagain77's delight.  He really needs to put on a slightly heavier layer of that makeup he saves for when videosexing with kairosfocus, wrap a nice white towel around his head, and take a look at the stains.  They're sure as heck nothing like the perfectly proportioned face on the shroud.

    Date: 2011/08/16 08:40:35, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 16 2011,00:56)
    Dembski chimes in on CSI / Lizzie:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....wing-it

    Clearly Dembski finds Lizzie more attractive than MathGrrl.  He never showed up in one of her threads to show how to calculate CSI.

    I wonder why that is.

    Date: 2011/08/17 08:54:45, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 17 2011,09:12)
    Quote

    18.1
    Jonathan M  August 16, 2011 at 10:14 pm
    And as it happens I have a blog post on this very topic going up first thing tomorrow morning on Evolution News & Views.


    link

    And as it happens, comments are of course not allowed at Evolution News & Views.  That makes it much easier for Jonathan to avoid Nick's evisceration of his arguments.

    Date: 2011/08/18 15:59:32, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 18 2011,16:28)
    I like "Joe's" comments because "he" seems to be trying something "new" with "grammar"

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-396584

    That's a great link they provided.  From the Biologos article:
    Quote
    Before I had finished Edge of Evolution, I was done with ID. I would lose my faith in ID not by comparing it to the science of evolution, but by reading one of its leading proponents and evaluating his work on its own merits. ID, I decided, was an argument from analogy, ignorance and incredulity.

    (Emphasis mine.) Followed by:
    Quote
    Having rejected ID, I began to look into the evidence for evolution. I can also clearly recall this transition, and, if memory serves, it happened on the same day I rejected ID. This transition, however, required only ten or fifteen minutes - just as long as I needed to read the first research article on my reading list: the 2005 Nature paper comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes. I put the finished paper down on my desk, said “well, that’s that, then” out loud to my empty office, and sat back in my chair. The contrast with ID could hardly have been starker: here was nothing but argument from evidence.

    Is that just the wind or is the big tent trembling?

    Date: 2011/08/19 09:53:21, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 19 2011,10:36)
    And, sorry, but I don't see "lies" coming from the IDists, so there is nothing to show concern over in that respect.  I don't see "lies" coming from your side either.  I see different perceptions on things that are not facts so "lying" isn't even an option.

    I invite you to peruse the MathGrrl threads on UD.  Note how many times IDC proponents make claims about CSI, but are never able to define it with any mathematical rigor nor to actually calculate it for a real world artifact.  Note also how many times those same IDC proponents claim to have done so, without ever being able to point to a definition or calculation.

    I further invite you to review the threads in which Elizabeth Liddle has been involved.  Note how many times IDC proponents impugn her integrity, without any evidence of dishonesty on her part.  Note also how none of those IDC proponents attempt to justify their insults, even when challenged to do so.

    There are many proven liars among the IDC proponents on UD.

    Date: 2011/08/19 10:16:08, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 19 2011,11:06)
    Quote (Patrick @ Aug. 19 2011,09:53)
     
    Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 19 2011,10:36)
    And, sorry, but I don't see "lies" coming from the IDists, so there is nothing to show concern over in that respect.  I don't see "lies" coming from your side either.  I see different perceptions on things that are not facts so "lying" isn't even an option.

    I invite you to peruse the MathGrrl threads on UD.  Note how many times IDC proponents make claims about CSI, but are never able to define it with any mathematical rigor nor to actually calculate it for a real world artifact.  Note also how many times those same IDC proponents claim to have done so, without ever being able to point to a definition or calculation.

    I further invite you to review the threads in which Elizabeth Liddle has been involved.  Note how many times IDC proponents impugn her integrity, without any evidence of dishonesty on her part.  Note also how none of those IDC proponents attempt to justify their insults, even when challenged to do so.

    There are many proven liars among the IDC proponents on UD.



    And, we ID supports could say the same thing about you evolutionists.  Gads...I truly believe ya'll can't see that.  You all do the exact same thing, and you believe you're in the right...same as they do.

    As always, amazing debate to watch...both sides believe they're being demonized and lied to.  Although, I think ya'll take it much harder and spew out much more vehementally.  You can't seem to see that your side does the exact same thing the IDists do.  And, it all comes down to belief systems...not facts or black and white.  Hence, like I said, lying is kinda out of the picture.  The hated Sal scolded me very, very early on when I accussed someone of lying.  Made me step back and look at things from a different perspective.  I doubt *very few* people actually deliberately lie in this debate.

    It is a fact that several IDC proponents claimed to have defined and calculated CSI when they did not do so.

    It is a fact that several IDC proponents have accused Elizabeth Liddle of dishonesty without being able to support their assertions.

    Your <i>tu quoque</i> is not only inherently fallacious, it is objectively baseless.  A number of IDC proponents at UD are proven liars.  If you dispute that, provide empirical evidence for your position.  Mine is right out there for anyone to see.

    Date: 2011/08/19 21:05:35, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Could we be about to see the rare eat-your-own-young banning?  Ilion is poking Barry with a sharp stick:
    Quote
    Quote
    Quote
    Ilion
    Yeah, I can’t tell you how much I enjoy reading an argument which is polished to a high gloss with Politically (and Academically) Correct “gender inclusive language”.

    Barry
    Ilion, you are walking on thin ice.

    Ilion
    So, the rabid Darwinists are right about UD?

    Silly Ilion, you can only talk that kind of smack to polite, intelligent, well-educated women from England.  Barry is a far more delicate flower.

    Date: 2011/08/20 10:57:12, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 20 2011,11:29)
    Whoa! A post by Iliot that deserves reproduction without comment:
       
    Quote
    . . .
    “Gender inclusive language” has three uses:
    1) by leftists, to attempt to sow societal disrespect toward men and mutual resentment between men and women;
    2) by leftists, to signal to other leftists that one is a leftist;
    2) by non-leftists, it is used by academics and other feminized men to signal to the leftist gate-keepers that the user is “cool”.
    . . .


    As Ilion's behavior towards Elizabeth Liddle shows, he simply can't comprehend the idea of being courteous and inclusive.

    And no, I'm not a "leftist", although some on UD might consider me such.

    Date: 2011/08/20 11:24:35, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Seversky @ Aug. 20 2011,12:19)
    Quote (Patrick @ Aug. 20 2011,10:57)
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 20 2011,11:29)
    Whoa! A post by Iliot that deserves reproduction without comment:
         
    Quote
    . . .
    “Gender inclusive language” has three uses:
    1) by leftists, to attempt to sow societal disrespect toward men and mutual resentment between men and women;
    2) by leftists, to signal to other leftists that one is a leftist;
    2) by non-leftists, it is used by academics and other feminized men to signal to the leftist gate-keepers that the user is “cool”.
    . . .


    As Ilion's behavior towards Elizabeth Liddle shows, he simply can't comprehend the idea of being courteous and inclusive.

    And no, I'm not a "leftist", although some on UD might consider me such.

    If you're to the left of Genghiz Khan to some on UD you're a leftie.

    I reject your one dimensional metric and substitute my own n-dimensional system.  I am a majority of one.

    Date: 2011/08/20 11:46:01, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 20 2011,12:24)
    Quote (Patrick @ Aug. 20 2011,10:57)
    As Ilion's behavior towards Elizabeth Liddle shows, he simply can't comprehend the idea of being courteous and inclusive.

    He is basically the same in real life.

    Oh, for Eris' sake....

    Did someone mention backhoes earlier?  Ilion is going to need one of these to sink lower:

    Date: 2011/08/20 14:42:23, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Ilion keeps opening his kimono:
    Quote
    Quote
    Scott Andrews
    There’s a fourth reason for using gender-inclusive language: to acknowledge that the audience isn’t entirely male.

    Dude! That’s just a variation of 1).

    "1)" of course is "to attempt to sow societal disrespect toward men and mutual resentment between men and women".

    So demonstrating respect toward one gender is automatically showing disrespect to the other.

    I used to think that understanding how other people think would lead to better communication, but that's not how this is shaking out.

    Date: 2011/08/28 10:17:27, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Seversky @ Aug. 28 2011,09:56)
    As others have pointed out, we need a rich soil of ideas, fertilized with whatever evidence we can glean, in which to grow good hypotheses and theories.

    At least they have the fertilizer bit down.

    Date: 2011/08/29 20:13:57, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (JLT @ Aug. 29 2011,20:47)
    Fixed that for you:
       
    Quote
    I must admire the technique of reducing “distribution of fitness effect” “complex specified information” to an abbreviation, DFE CSI. It makes it sounds so routine, giving the impression that someone, somehow, has a clue how fitness effects are distributed specified information is calculated, and says it so much does it so frequently that he needs a shorter way to say it.

    Nicely done!



    Note to self:  Make sure to enter "applause" and not "clap" into Google images next time.

    Date: 2011/08/31 10:31:39, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 31 2011,11:01)
    If KF is engaged in politicking and appears in public places, his image is fair game.

    Besides, doesn't he approve of outing when it's someone else?

    Why yes, he does!

    It's the asymmetry that justifies his hypocrisy, you see.

    That being said, I do agree with Louis* that compiling dossiers on the UD denizens borders on creepy stalker behavior.  Gentlemen don't read each other's mail, and all that.

    * Is that a bannable offense here?

    Date: 2011/08/31 13:59:02, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Louis @ Aug. 31 2011,12:02)
    Quote (Patrick @ Aug. 31 2011,16:31)
     
    Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 31 2011,11:01)
    If KF is engaged in politicking and appears in public places, his image is fair game.

    Besides, doesn't he approve of outing when it's someone else?

    Why yes, he does!

    It's the asymmetry that justifies his hypocrisy, you see.

    That being said, I do agree with Louis* that compiling dossiers on the UD denizens borders on creepy stalker behavior.  Gentlemen don't read each other's mail, and all that.

    * Is that a bannable offense here?

    Usually, yes.

    Louis

    ETA: I don't think anyone here is compiling dossiers! I hope they're not....you're not are you?

    This post suggests that whoever is behind that blog is collecting personal information about UD regulars.

    If it's a slow night on /b/, that information could be (mis)used.

    Date: 2011/09/01 05:50:03, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Louis @ Aug. 31 2011,15:46)
    Ahhhh /b/. Yes Patrick, I'm well aware of /b/

    I'm sure you either stumbled upon it accidentally or clicked a link sent by a malicious prankster and, in either case, quickly closed that browser window.

    Date: 2011/09/02 09:53:44, Link
    Author: Patrick
    markf ftw:
    Quote
    One way of looking at this. If ID can only measure its progress through objections to “Darwinism” then how is progress in ID different from progress in any other creationist movement such as AIG?

    Not even UD can spin ID's "achievements" over the past five years any better than that.

    Date: 2011/09/02 19:26:47, Link
    Author: Patrick
    markf continues pwning UD:
    Quote
    However, your point is interesting. It seems you are suggesting that the ID argument is:

    “known non-design alternatives for life are wrong therefore life was designed”

    I think this is a good summary of the ID argument but do you really support it? I have spent hours hearing from people on the ID side protesting that this is not the case. They claim there is positive evidence for design as well as evidence against “Darwinism”.

    Barry "Free Speech For Me But Not For Thee" Arrington helpfully points Mark to ID's positive claims, including:
    Quote
    1.  Living things display IC and FSCI.

    2.  Material forces have never been shown to produce IC and FSCI.

    3.  Intelligent agents routinely produce IC and FSCI.

    4.  Therefore, based on the evidence that we have in front of us, the best explanation for the presence of IC and FSCI in living things is that they are the result of acts of an intelligent agent.

    So, Barry, how about some examples of how to calculate this FSCI thing you're on about?  You could start with these four scenarios.

    Date: 2011/09/03 19:54:34, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Seversky @ Sep. 03 2011,19:14)
    Quote (paragwinn @ Sep. 03 2011,16:13)
    Densey O'Bleary's Philosophy of Science:      
    Quote
    Intelligent design will prevail when engineers rule.

    Cuz an engineer would never tell you that we live in a giant trailer full of poop.

    Tacoma Narrows Bridge

    Titanic

    Hindenberg

    Hyatt Regency Walkway (Kansas City)

    Ford Pinto

    London Millenium Footbridge

    Space Shuttle Challenger

    Chernobyl

    Tay Bridge (Scotland)

    De Havilland Comet

    Deepwater Horizon

    ... etc

    Yep, engineers are so much less error-prone than all the other disciplines and professions..

    You left out Bhopal.  Won't someone think of the chemical engineers?

    Date: 2011/09/05 11:01:17, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Wolfhound @ Sep. 05 2011,07:41)
    Quote (Louis @ Sep. 04 2011,10:16)
    All WoW and no play makes Jack a dull boy...All WoW and no play makes Jack a dull boy...

    ;-)

    Louis

    What?  You are suggesting I'm dull boy/girl just because I have a level 85 hunter, level 85 paladin, level 85 druid, level 85 priest, level 85 death knight, and a level 64 rogue?   :angry:

    Oh, wait, it's all of those other reasons.

    Carry on, then.

    Depends.  Shadow or Holy priest?

    Date: 2011/09/10 08:37:06, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 09 2011,19:32)
    [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-the-mathematical-beauty-we-find-in-the-cosmos-is-an-objective-fact-which-points-to-a-d

    esigner/comment-page-1/#comment-398797]Lewontin[/URL]!

    If he weren't so sanctimonious, condescending, and willfully ignorant, one could almost feel some sympathy for kairosfocus.  He's so blinded by Leweontin's statement that "Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." that he is actually incapable of understanding that the following sentences explain exactly why this is the case:  "The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."

    When you understand the scientific method, kairosfocus, you will be able to understand Lewontin.

    Date: 2011/09/11 10:44:48, Link
    Author: Patrick
    DrBot responds to Joseph and shows UD what reality looks like:
    Quote
    Quote
    According to the current theory of evolution ALL genetic changes are accidents/ mistakes/ errors.

    I’m not aware of anything in evolutionary theory that says that the goal of reproduction is an exact copy. What is required for evolution to happen is actually reproduction with variance, so genetic changes serve a purpose – i.e. they are not accidents, mistakes or errors in the sense that they are unintended – but they are all random with respect to fitness.

    There is an important difference between randomly generated, but necessary, variety and just unwanted errors.

    Evolution depends on variety so by definition variety in its self is not an error, or to put it another way – you don’t understand evolutionary theory.

    That's gonna leave a mark.

    (Emphasis mine.)

    Date: 2011/09/19 19:45:57, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Nick Matzke asks:
    Quote
    How could JonathanM have missed this huge and obvious biological fact, if he is claiming to give a well-researched account of the system?

    That's one o' them reetoerickle questions, right?

    Date: 2011/09/20 07:32:54, Link
    Author: Patrick
    DrBot rubs StephenB's nose in Lizzie's argument:
    Quote
    Now where, StephenB, do they conclude that “abiogenesis is plausible”? They don’t, what they show is that the data supports their hypothesis, as stated in the paper, and that it fits into their own broader theory about abiogenesis.

    Like DrBot, I am astounded at how difficult it is for StephenB and the rest of the IDiots to follow Lizzie's very clear explanation.  It's almost enough to make me want to study psychology.  The problem isn't low intelligence, although that does contribute in some cases, or lack of education, ditto, but a deeply ingrained inability to recognize facts that contradict their views.  Frustrating, but fascinating.

    It does make me more cognizant of when I might be reinforcing my own biases, though, so clearly my tard addiction is good for me.

    Date: 2011/09/20 08:10:53, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Louis @ Sep. 20 2011,08:39)
    Quote (Patrick @ Sep. 20 2011,13:32)
    [SNIP]

    It does make me more cognizant of when I might be reinforcing my own biases, though, so clearly my tard addiction is good for me.

    Or is that merely reinforcing your own biases?

    Wow, no one ever intimated that I needed to be less subtle before.  :D

    Date: 2011/09/20 14:00:57, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Louis @ Sep. 20 2011,10:57)
    Quote (Patrick @ Sep. 20 2011,14:10)
    Quote (Louis @ Sep. 20 2011,08:39)
     
    Quote (Patrick @ Sep. 20 2011,13:32)
    [SNIP]

    It does make me more cognizant of when I might be reinforcing my own biases, though, so clearly my tard addiction is good for me.

    Or is that merely reinforcing your own biases?

    Wow, no one ever intimated that I needed to be less subtle before.  :D

    You, sir, win one internet!

    Louis

    Date: 2011/09/20 17:18:33, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 20 2011,17:50)
    Quote reference fail.

    "My God!  It's full of porn."

    Is there an emoticon for hanging one's head in shame?

    Date: 2011/09/22 07:20:37, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Gil Dodgen is lost and confused:
    Quote
    My company has been very generous in providing me with all kinds of training....
    . . .
    In my experience attending these training courses I am struck by the fact that I am almost always among the very few who are American-born scientists and engineers.

    Alternative explanation:  The other engineers learned it the first time.

    DrREC is probably correct, though:
    Quote
    Perhaps you are one of the few American-born scientists and engineers willing to work at the wages your company provides.

    Date: 2011/09/23 06:16:16, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Elizabeth Liddle destroys the "ID is too science" argument in one magnificent post.

    Date: 2011/09/23 07:13:33, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (rossum @ Sep. 23 2011,07:42)
    Quote (Patrick @ Sep. 23 2011,06:16)
    Elizabeth Liddle destroys the "ID is too science" argument in [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/paper-“the-origin-and-relationship-between-the-three-domains-of-life-is-lodged-in-a-phylogenetic-


    impasse”/comment-page-1/#comment-400613]one magnificent post[/URL].

    Hopefully working link to her excellent post: [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/paper-“the-origin-and-relationship-between-the-three-domains-of-life-is-lodged-in-a-phylogenetic-

    impasse”/comment-page-1/#comment-400613]here[/URL].

    The link is [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/paper-“the-origin-and-relationship-between-the-three-domains-of-life-is-lodged-in-a-phylogenetic-

    impasse”/comment-page-1/#comment-400613]http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....-400613[/URL]

    rossum

    Thanks, I got bitten by the line break bug.

    Date: 2011/09/23 08:07:26, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Wolfhound @ Sep. 23 2011,08:45)
    Looks like they purged it.  I'm shocked, shocked I tells ya!

    Nope, Rossum got bitten by it too.  Here's the link, tested for your safety and convenience:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....-400613

    Date: 2011/09/23 08:09:55, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Patrick @ Sep. 23 2011,09:07)
    Quote (Wolfhound @ Sep. 23 2011,08:45)
    Looks like they purged it.  I'm shocked, shocked I tells ya!

    Nope, Rossum got bitten by it too.  Here's the link, tested for your safety and convenience:

    [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/paper-“the-origin-and-relationship-between-the-three-domains-of-life-is-lodged-in-a-phylogenetic-

    impasse”/comment-page-1/#comment-400613]http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....-400613[/URL]

    Okay, that's really weird.  I carefully removed the line break, and the board helpfully put it back in.  bit.ly refuses to shorten it.  Google to the rescue:  http://goo.gl/rr5PF

    Date: 2011/09/24 08:32:53, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Jonathan M has been infected with the Lewontin meme.  kairosfocus needs to learn to keep it in his pants.

    Reading Jonathan M's posts actually saddens me.  Unlike some of the UD regulars, he doesn't come across as intellectually deficient.  He's young and could have a promising career, but he seems determined to follow a path that, at best, leads to becoming a bitter, irrelevant, failed academic teaching at a backwater bible school.  At worst he could end up on that park bench next to Joe G, muttering at pigeons.

    It's bad enough that these bastards are trying to destroy science education.  The corruption of individual minds is simply repugnant.

    Date: 2011/09/24 18:08:46, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 24 2011,17:02)
    Quote (noncarborundum @ Sep. 24 2011,10:58)
    Zachriel is entirely correct that it doesn't happen in Chrome.  This problem is not here, it's at UD.  I suspect there's something in the HTML for that particular page that confuses IE and Firefox but that Chrome has no problem with.

    Interesting bug. We mentioned that it worked in Chrome because Elizabeth Liddle's responses are well worth the read.

    tinyurl.com/3pftzmb

    Absolutely.  While the geek in me appreciates the speculation as to the nature of the technical problems, I hope we can find some time to address important topics in physics as well, such as how hard Chris Doyle would have to sneeze to extract his head from his ass.

    Date: 2011/09/27 19:12:29, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (paragwinn @ Sep. 27 2011,19:47)
    As DeNews condescends to notify UDers of Jason Rosenhouse's upcoming book[link to Jason's blog], woodford ponders this:
    Quote
    Why does News have to sneer at everything? It really lowers the tone of this website and takes away from what’s being said.

    Why, indeed.

    While Mrs. O'Leary treated me very nicely in my guise as MathGrrl, I simply cannot accept that she has the writing skill necessary to lower the tone of UD.

    Date: 2011/09/28 08:29:34, Link
    Author: Patrick
    gpuccio is back and talking about information again:
    Quote
    I am discussing the probability of generating the complex functional information present in basci protein domains by darwinain evolution. That is clear, simple and explicit.

    It's almost as though he's completely forgotten about the multiple threads on Mark Frank's blog where he claimed to be able to calculate CSI but ended up repeatedly changing his definition and finally stopped participating altogether.

    He must have spent the last year fixing those problems with his definition and calculations.  Surely no Intelligent Design Creationist at UD would be so intellectually dishonest as to continue to use demonstrably nonsensical concepts.

    Date: 2011/09/30 07:19:48, Link
    Author: Patrick
    dmullenix speaks truth at UD:
    Quote
    As far as I can tell, ID’s sole self-appoint task is to make futile attacks on on their straw-man misunderstandings of evolutionary theory and, on this blog at least, on science generally.

    (The whole post is worth reading.)

    I sense a ban and comment elimination pending.

    Date: 2011/09/30 08:42:47, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Despite the always stiff competition at UD, I believe the Cluelessly Projecting Hypocrite of the Week award should go to Eugene S:
    Quote
    I think to say: “we don’t know” or even “we can’t know” is more honest than to lie with smoke in mirrors instead of evidence.

    Yes, Eugene, that would indeed be more honest.  I look forward to you applying that standard to Upright BiPed, gpuccio, Dembski, kairosfocus, and, of course, your good self.

    Date: 2011/10/01 15:36:08, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Petrushka has been landing some heavy body blows recently at UD:
    Quote
    Unlike ID, sciences that posit mechanisms require research to validate conjectures about the mechanisms. that could take decades or even centuries.

    If your mechanism is the assertion that some unspecified entity having unspecified capabilities did some unspecified things at unspecified time and places, then you are worry free.


    markf, DrRec, and DrBot have also been pointing out the vacuity at the core of intelligent design creationism.  I wonder how long they'll be allowed to discuss the emperor's nudity.  The regulars aren't even bothering to mount a defense -- they don't seem to see the lack of empirical evidence, a testable theory, or predictions that suggest new research to be problems.

    Date: 2011/10/02 10:21:05, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 02 2011,10:02)
    kairosfocus, typist:
     
    Quote
    Functionally specific, complex information and associated information [FSCO/I]  — especially, digitally coded FSCI [dFSCI] — are seen as two of the strongest signs of design as cause.

    For instance, when you see this post, you do not wonder or debate the odds of different letters being strung by chance [e.g. e in English is typically about 1/8 of the text], you intuitively immediately know that this is best explained as the work of an intelligent, purposeful agent acting towards a goal and based on his knowledge of the language, codes and topic in question. And, analytically, we can substantiate that intuition.


    When I see "FSCI [dFSCI]" I think of a monkey trying to type Shakespeare.  And I would be right.

    I see those terms as an excellent metric for identifying the most dishonest of the intelligent design creationists.  Despite the fact that no one has ever calculated, or even clearly defined, CSI or any of its variants and despite the further fact that this has been repeatedly and unambiguously demonstrated to them, the IDCists continue to make claims based on this nonsense.

    The only solution I can see is to chain a few of these idiots to a whiteboard in an abandoned warehouse, superglue a marker into their only free hand, fire up a webcam to stream the event, and not free them until they either provide an example calculation of CSI or write "CSI is incoherent gibberish."

    But that would be wrong time-consuming.

    Date: 2011/10/03 09:22:45, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Louis @ Oct. 03 2011,05:47)
    3) I was not serious about torturing them or point 2) above. I hope that was MORE than obvious. Perhaps not! ;-)

    Indeed, no torture intended.  What would a better metaphor be?  Perhaps putting their arguments in . . . a vise?

    Date: 2011/10/08 13:19:41, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 08 2011,10:53)
    Quote
    Eugene S October 8, 2011 at 8:43 am
    Elizabeth,

    This is simply not nice, to me. Adam and Eve were real people, like your or my parents, not scientific or religious concepts. Would that be okay for you to be addressed as mitochondrial Liz? I don’t think so.

    I think that Lizzie may have been too nice in response, actually apologizing to Eugene.

    I'd like to see his evidence for an historical Adam and Eve.

    Date: 2011/10/11 11:32:47, Link
    Author: Patrick
    bbigej demonstrates psychological compatibility with the IDCists at UD by projecting onto Nick Matzke:
    Quote
    I’m seeing a lot of personal attacks and attempts at character assassination on ID proponents. Can you please cite any papers in support of your claims, especially pertaining to the claim that the Darwinian mechanism can produce copious amounts of complex, specified information? Thanks.

    Translation:  "Pointing out exactly when and where we demonstrate our profound and willful ignorance of every aspect of biology is so rude.  Please focus instead on this concept that we've never rigorously defined for a metric we've never actually measured."

    Date: 2011/10/13 11:49:55, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Joseph [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-foundations-8-switcheroo-the-error-of-asserting-without-adequate-observational-evidence

    -that-the-design-of-life-from-ool-on-is-achievable-by-small-chance-driven-success-reinforc

    ed-incre/comment-page-1/#comment-403013]tells a whopper[/URL]:
    Quote
    Elizabeth,

    GAs are MY fiel and they do have tarhets/ goals. The antenna GA is one such GA with a target/ goal.

    AVIDA OTOH is bogus for all the reasons provided.

    Followed shortly by:
    Quote
    Yes I have programmed and used GAs to find solutions to encryption issues.

    Since encryption keys are the canonical example of fitness landscapes for which evolutionary algorithms are useless, I'm calling bullshit.

    Date: 2011/10/13 11:52:28, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Shortened, hopefully usable URL:  http://bit.ly/r2oPQ0

    Date: 2011/10/13 13:54:39, Link
    Author: Patrick
    kellyhomes pokes kairosfocus with a sharp stick:
    Quote
    And I know somebody that even when they were presented with such video evidence they simply refused to believe what they were seeing and constructed an elaborate explanation as to why the video was not showing what it was plainly showing. The person viewing the video never latched on to it’s true meaning.

    I see what you did there.  A bit subtle for Gordon, isn't it?

    Date: 2011/10/13 14:21:16, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (BillB @ Oct. 13 2011,15:15)
    DrBot is less subtle  
    Quote
         
    Quote
    You do not have a right to redefine words as you please.
    Neither do you yet you are happy to do it when it suits you.

    Latching, psuedo-latching, semi-latching, quasi-latching …

    Speaking of DrBot, he, along with Petrushka, Elizabeth Liddle, markf, the new sock kellyhomes, and a few others have been rhetorically pounding the UD regulars into the ground on numerous threads over the past few days.  Is Clivebaby asleep at the ban hammer?  If it weren't Joseph, kairosfocus, and bornagain77 getting beaten up, I'd almost feel bad for them.

    Date: 2011/10/13 18:33:14, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Upright BiPed takes a page from kairosfocus' book and waits a few weeks before lying about supporting his claims:
    Quote
    The mechanics of information transfer by semiosis has been explained to you.

    I seem to remember Upright BiPed being completely incapable of producing operational definitions for several of his terms and running away from the discussion when this was repeatedly pointed out to him.

    Doesn't their holy book say something about dishonesty?  As I remember, it was agin' it.

    Date: 2011/10/14 07:25:50, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 14 2011,07:43)
    Unpleasant Blowhard:
       
    Quote
    The Big Bang Theory was adopted because the physical entailments involved in the theory were supported by the evidence. ID asks for no more, or no less. Therefore, there is no legitimate reason to deny that request.

    ID claims that the information that organized matter into living things was the product of an agent. The existence of that information has very observable, physical entailments. Those physical entailments (which are truly profound in their dynamics) are an exact match to the same physical entailments which result from information being conveyed by semiotic means (by representations and rules).

    UB doesn't quite grasp the notion of "entailment."

    UB doesn't grasp the notion of words having meaning.

    Date: 2011/10/14 09:13:37, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Joseph is reduced to mere sputtering, even more blatantly than usual:
    Quote
    No one said every change has to be designed. ID does not exclude darwinian mechanisms and it does not exclude random effects.

    Also the hypotheses have nothing to do with blind and undirected chemical processes and again ID is not anti-evolution.

    So ID isn't anti-evolution, it doesn't exclude anything, and it doesn't entail anything.  What exactly is your point, then?

    Date: 2011/10/15 14:31:49, Link
    Author: Patrick
    It's probably juvenile and mean spirited of me, but I'm really enjoying reading Larry Moran's posts at UD.  He's giving them all of the respect they have earned.

    Date: 2011/10/15 21:47:12, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Louis @ Oct. 15 2011,17:36)
    Quote (Patrick @ Oct. 15 2011,20:31)
    It's probably juvenile and mean spirited of me, but I'm really enjoying reading Larry Moran's posts at UD.  He's giving them all of the respect they have earned.

    Larry's posting at UD? Oh THIS I have to see....

    ....wait. That involves actually going to UD. Hmmm I'm getting over a cold and that place is like internet transmittable brain cancer. I'm not sure in my weakened state I should dare. I shall retire to my fainting couch with a mint julep and get the house boy to give me a head massage.

    Louis

    So it was Louis on the fainting couch with the house boy....

    Sorry, I think I'm playing the wrong game.

    Date: 2011/10/16 11:45:51, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Doc Bill @ Oct. 16 2011,00:26)
    Yeah, you're thinking of the game

    "Clueless"

    This is Louis?

    Date: 2011/10/16 19:24:11, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Elizabeth Liddle assaults kairosfocus' worldview:
    Quote
    kairosfocus: it is not “doing you an injustice” to disagree with you.

    Obviously it is, Lizzie, else the lying hypocrite would have no reason to clutch his pearls and get the vapors.

    It's looking like the aftermath of Sherman's march to the sea over at UD.  Lizzie has taken apart Behe's IC argument and ground the pieces under her heel.  Multiple participants from the reality-based community are asking for positive evidence for ID and pointing out when it isn't forthcoming.  Larry Moran is calling them "IDiots" to their virtual faces.  Every UD regular is being called on their usual nonsense.  The earth is scorched and there's no place for an Intelligent Design Creationist to hide.

    The only regret I have is that we won't have UD to kick around anymore.

    Date: 2011/10/18 07:10:52, Link
    Author: Patrick
    kairosfocus is an ass.

    I try not to flip the bozo bit on people because they occasionally come up with something unexpected*.  I have come to the conclusion that such an event is vanishingly unlikely in kairosfocus' case.  I think it's safe to only read excerpts from his screeds that hardier tardologists than I post here.

    *". . . and then just when you think they're going to start dribbling one of 'em says, 'Incidentally, putting a thirty-foot parabolic reflector on a high place to shoot the rays of the sun at an enemy's ships would be a very interesting demonstration of optical principles.'"

    Date: 2011/10/18 08:56:49, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 18 2011,09:41)
    When you get the 404 message, find the <br> tag embedded in the URL and edit it out, then press return.

    I'll make a point of using bit.ly or similar in the future.

    Date: 2011/10/19 16:15:12, Link
    Author: Patrick
    I can't tell whether, in this thread, Joseph is desperately trying to avoid learning anything that might contradict his religious views or if he's just that stupid.

    Date: 2011/10/20 06:10:34, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Software Engineer's Off The Cuff Requirements List For A Simple Cell

    Yeah, Barry, because having no background in biology or chemistry makes you eminently qualified to discuss origin of life theories.  That would be as stupid as Barely Literate Journalist's Off The Cuff Rant About Neuroscience.  Oh, wait....

    Date: 2011/10/20 07:04:21, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Louis @ Oct. 20 2011,07:17)
    I have been deliberately avoiding the OOL "discussion" at UD. That is a tarpit of T.A.R.D. I have no wish to embroil myself in. My chronic SIWOTI syndrome would drag me in permanently and cause me to correct them.

    And that way lies heartburn!

    Louis

    Ah, the temptation to leave a trail of Joseph's tard crumbs from here to UD is extreme.

    "One more step, Louis.  You know you need to correct just this last misconception."

    Date: 2011/10/20 07:45:56, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Elizabeth Liddle asks:
    Quote
    Tell me how you “program” a molecule, without altering the molecule. And if you do alter the molecule, tell me in what sense that not a hardware change.

    Joseph has the answer:
    Quote
    And geez Elizabeth programmers program disks without altering the disk- the prom is still a prom.

    So nothing changes on the disk, Joey?  It's not altered at all?

    That thread and the related ones are a complete analogy wreck.

    Date: 2011/10/21 08:14:27, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Elizabeth Liddle makes a simple point to Joseph:
    Quote
    “Races” don’t “do evil” Joseph. People do. People who ascribe evil-doing to a “race” are called “racists”.

    The Nazis, for instance.

    Joseph then shows his true colors:
    Quote
    Races can do evil, Elizabeth.

    This is why free speech is important.  I like my bigots out and proud.

    Date: 2011/10/21 10:50:59, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 21 2011,10:49)
    Sadly, I can't even tell if I Poed myself.

    If you gaze long into the tard, the hard will gaze back into you.

    Date: 2011/10/21 10:51:41, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Patrick @ Oct. 21 2011,11:50)
    Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 21 2011,10:49)
    Sadly, I can't even tell if I Poed myself.

    If you gaze long into the tard, the hard will gaze back into you.

    Hard, tard, Freud, fuckit it's Friday.

    Date: 2011/10/22 08:43:07, Link
    Author: Patrick
    DrBot tells it like it is, proving that Clivebaby is asleep at the ban switch:
    Quote
    KF, ‘the irresponsible rhetoric of turnabout’ – all you have there is a self proclaimed methodology for conducting debates in which you are allowed to criticize, slander, make claims of moral inferiority and issue accusations of lying and deceit, but your opponents aren’t.

    I stand by my claim that you are a hypocrite – in fact, I would argue that it is an empirical observation!

    DaveScot would never have let kairosfocus get bitch slapped like that.

    Date: 2011/10/22 13:34:12, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Lewontin!  Only this time, from Elizabeth Liddle.  She takes kairosfocus through the entire review that he so loves to quote mine, explaining the big words to him and refuting him point by point.

    Lizzie seems like someone I'd enjoy having a beer with, but in my opinion she is wasting her time with such a thorough fisking.  kairosfocus is willfully ignorant, dishonest, hypocritical, and incapable of admitting error.  There is nothing to be gained from interacting with him.

    That last sentence is actually true of all the intelligent design creationists remaining at UD.  They're not even worth making fun of anymore.  Anyone know of a better tard source?

    Date: 2011/10/23 12:38:35, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (sparc @ Oct. 23 2011,03:36)
    it's actually his default statement after being nailed.

    A visual I did not need.

    Date: 2011/10/23 18:23:18, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 23 2011,17:41)
    the absence of obvious self awareness, or a theory of mind, seems to be a prerequisite for riding that short bus

    Interesting.  That would partly explain the fear they evince at atheists lacking an objective morality.*  They know how the others of their tribe would act without the threat of divine punishment.

    * No, I don't agree with their characterization.  I suspect their definitions of "objective" and "subjective" are as incoherent as their concept of "intelligent design".

    Date: 2011/10/24 10:07:16, Link
    Author: Patrick
    The new sock GinoB makes me miss MathGrrl:
    Quote
    William J Murray
    Quote
    500-1000+ bits of FSCO/I is the ID metric where the “best explanation” of any phenomena moves from “physics & chance” to ID agency.

    That would be the FSCO/I metric that no one has rigorously defined, or given an objective way to measure, or calculated for any real world biological objects, right?

    In other words it’s just another way of saying “this looks designed to me” with lots of pseudo-technical jargon added for window dressing.

    I am still amazed at how many home truths are being allowed from the reality-based participants at UD.  The intelligent design creationists are being allowed to twist in the wind.  If they hadn't worked so hard to deserve it, I'd almost feel bad for them.

    Date: 2011/10/24 10:24:31, Link
    Author: Patrick
    It gets better.  William J Murray has contracted* kairosfocus' delusions:
    Quote
    It is rigorously defined, and it can be calculated handily. You can find the definition and reference in the FAQ and Glossary on this site, or by googling “kairosfocus FSCO/I” and finding many exhaustive epxlanations and examples on this site and others.

    It's interesting that, just as with kairosfocus, William J Murray claims to have examples but never actually gets around to producing them.

    * Tongue kissing is unsanitary.

    Date: 2011/10/25 14:58:31, Link
    Author: Patrick
    DrBot points out kairosfocus' hypocrisy:
    Quote
    KF, you are frequently as rude and you owe plenty of people apologies already!

    I finally figured out that all you socks over there are working in concert to trigger a cardiac event or brain aneurysm in Gordon.  You should be roundly chastised, but I can't work up the umbrage in this case.

    Date: 2011/10/26 08:42:58, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Chas D sums up the only reason I visit UD anymore (other than to read Elizabeth Liddle's stuff):
    Quote
    Quote
    Yaeh and MAYBE someday your position will have some research that supports your position!But until then do keep those promissory notes a comin’….
    Ah, my daily dive into Mirrorworld, where ID is an active science and evolution a left-field idea desperately in need of some factual investigation!

    Joseph seems stuck in a "La la la, I can't see your evidence or hear your predictions." phase lately.  I do wish he'd add some of his stylish vulgarity to mix things up.

    Date: 2011/10/26 11:26:29, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Ptaylor @ Oct. 25 2011,20:45)
    Final comment on that thread:
           
    Quote
    I will not reward that behaviour, so I will now shut down comments, and add responses in brief overnight to what requires a reasonable comment for record, as editorial notes.

    GEM of TKI

    I'm quietly playing IDiot bingo here by myself.  What's the proper armchair psychologist term for Gordon's fear and loathing of open discussion combined with his assumption that he has the authority to reward and punish other participants?  Is "being an ignorant, dishonest, cowardly ass" too technical a term?

    Date: 2011/10/26 13:10:35, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Freddie @ Oct. 26 2011,13:29)
    Damn - just when you've made one armchair diagnosis, another one with a better fit comes along.  Try Fanatic Narcissist to see if it fits.
         
    Quote
    Fanatic narcissist - including paranoid features. An individual whose self-esteem was severely arrested during childhood, who usually displays major paranoid tendencies, and who holds on to an illusion of omnipotence. These people are fighting delusions of insignificance and lost value, and trying to re-establish their self-esteem through grandiose fantasies and self-reinforcement. When unable to gain recognition or support from others, they take on the role of a heroic or worshipped person with a grandiose mission.

    Bolding mine.  Top that, someone!

    Narcissistic personality disorder was definitely the one I was thinking of, but you've nailed it with this one.

    Date: 2011/10/27 07:04:59, Link
    Author: Patrick
    gpuccio is a liar:
    Quote
    I have often given an explicit definition of dFSCI, and a personal threshold for biololgical dFSCI (150 bits).

    In four threads on Mark Frank's blog, starting here, gpuccio not only fails to provide an explicit definition or calculation of any CSI variant, but changes his definition whenever it looks like it is starting to be clear enough to calculate it.

    Quite disappointing.  He's far more polite, generally, than the other regulars at UD but just as dishonest as the worst of them.

    Date: 2011/10/27 08:33:29, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 27 2011,08:39)
    Quote (Patrick @ Oct. 27 2011,08:04)
    gpuccio is a liar:
     
    Quote
    I have often given an explicit definition of dFSCI, and a personal threshold for biololgical dFSCI (150 bits).

    In four threads on Mark Frank's blog, starting here, gpuccio not only fails to provide an explicit definition or calculation of any CSI variant, but changes his definition whenever it looks like it is starting to be clear enough to calculate it.

    Quite disappointing.  He's far more polite, generally, than the other regulars at UD but just as dishonest as the worst of them.

    meh what do you expect.

    I expect people who make claims to be able to define their terms and provide evidence in support of those claims.  I expect people to be intelligent enough to recognize when others point out legitimate problems with those definitions and that evidence.  I expect people to be intellectually honest enough to admit when they have clearly failed to sufficiently define their terms and support their claims with objective, empirical evidence.  I expect people to have the integrity not to reassert claims that have already been refuted.

    Oh, wait, that was a rhetorical question, right?

    Date: 2011/10/27 10:06:00, Link
    Author: Patrick
    gpuccio
    Quote
    There is no chemical reason why the sequence of the three nucleotides TCT maps to serene.

    DrBot
    Quote
    If there is no chemical reason why TCT maps to Serine then how do you make TCT map to Threonine?

    ScottAndrews2
    Quote
    Who said that there is no chemical reason why TCT maps to Serine?

    Attention to detail isn't any more important than internal consistency inside the big tent.

    Date: 2011/10/28 21:50:23, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 27 2011,08:06)
    Quote (CeilingCat @ Oct. 27 2011,06:42)
    Maybe we should start isolating one UDer at a time and tag-teaming them with clear, easy to understand replies to every cliched argument they throw out until they finally either learn something or at least go away.

    Instead, isolate them on at a time and demand definitions, explanations, and calculated examples... until it gets through their tiny hindbrains that they cannot do the things they claim to.

    Elizabeth Liddle's invitation for the UD regulars to join her at her blog suggests a related idea.  If every sock replied there (or here) and just left a pointer at UD, it might drag the roaches out into the light to be stomped on encourage the UD regulars to venture out from behind Clivebaby's skirts.  It would be especially interesting if replies at UD were of the form "Oh, we've been discussing that at AtBC.  You should join us there."

    Date: 2011/10/30 09:45:51, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Speaking of Joseph, Chas D and GinoB are winding him up into a proper lather.  Joseph has even started using terms like "evotard" that he usually reserves for his on cesspit of a blog.  The vacuum that Elizabeth Liddle left is being filled with the best that UD has to offer, apparently.

    Date: 2011/10/31 09:30:05, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Is there some kind of back channel between Joseph's blog and this thread on UD?
    Quote
    OK Joseph, you’ve convinced me you’re a compulsive liar who will say anything to ‘win’ a discussion. You continually lie about your experiences, you lie about what was said, you lie about the evidence others produce.

    Your compulsively dishonest behavior is neither healthy nor productive.

    I truly feel sorry for you that you’re so messed up mentally and emotionally. Go get some professional help.

    C'mon, Chas D, if we only talked to the honest ID proponents the conversation would stop altogether.

    Date: 2011/10/31 09:30:39, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Sorry, that was GinoB, not Chas D.

    Date: 2011/11/01 17:14:53, Link
    Author: Patrick
    DrBot is psychic:
    Quote
    I assume now you will proceed to deface this post, like you do to the posts of others who disagree with you?

    Followed shortly thereafter by this appearing in his comment:
    Quote
    {Ed: Dr Bot, of course is failing to note that this is a case of blood libel being dealt with. The attempt at immoral equivalency in that context is a sad case of enabling behaviour. And to make an editorial remark, yet again, is not to “deface” a post.}

    Date: 2011/11/02 10:16:20, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Lizzie explains a basic flaw in kairosfocus' argument:
    Quote
    Dr Liddle:

    Perhaps, it has not been recognised by you that once the alphabet is discrete state, it is perforce digital?

    Quote
    No, it has not been recognised by me, kf, because it is not true. “Discrete” does not mean the same as “digital”. Letters as used in words are discrete, that does not mean they are digital.

    This is even better than the Weasel latching debate because there is absolutely no wiggle room for kairosfocus.  He is purely, simply, clearly wrong.

    Now, since rule number one in his mind is that kairosfocus is never wrong and therefore will never admit error, what might we expect as a response?  Could this be the aneurysm trigger or is he immune to cognitive dissonance after all this time of living with it?

    Date: 2011/11/05 18:40:47, Link
    Author: Patrick
    KRock smells of Loki, but on the off chance he's just an ID virgin:
    Quote
    I have not once seen any ID advocate here at UD (or any ID website for that matter) display anything remotely close to that of the hate filled verbal castigations atheists deploy on say a YouTube post that’s Christian in nature.

    perhaps some kind sock could point him to Joseph's blog.

    Date: 2011/11/08 09:19:59, Link
    Author: Patrick
    DrRec asks a very uncomfortable question for the Intelligent Design Creationists:
    Quote
    I ask for a single observation of intelligent design (biological fsci over the universal probability bound arising at once, and the lecture I get in return contains:

    ” intelligent design comes out on top, as it is the only known and causally adequate cause currently in operation (inferring the past from the present) which has been observed to produce vast amounts of complex, specified information.”

    So again, what is the observation in the present of the production of “vast amounts of complex, specified information” at once that would allow us to infer ID operated in the past?

    This beautifully demonstrates both the vacuity of ID, in that it has no observations to explain, and the complete lack of understanding of modern evolutionary theory on the part of the typical UD denizen.

    Joseph is already squirming.

    Date: 2011/11/09 06:58:07, Link
    Author: Patrick
    nullasalus takes projection to a whole new level, in response to Elizabeth Liddle:
    Quote
    That’s nice, but I’ll be frank: I have a low opinion of your intellectual honesty, and for that and a number of other reasons, I have zero interest in any back and forth with you on these subjects.

    A person who voluntarily associates with the kairosfocus, Joseph, bornagain77, Upright BiPed, gpuccio, and nearly all of the rest of the IDiots of UD doesn't have a lot of moral or intellectual high ground to stand on.

    It would be interesting to hold his feet to the fire to see if he could produce any objective evidence of Lizzie being even arguably dishonest.  Actually, it would just be interesting to hold his feet to fire.

    Date: 2011/11/09 12:35:11, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Tales from the Quote Mine.

    I think Denyse is a bit unclear on the concept.  Either that or refreshingly honest for an IDCist.

    Date: 2011/11/10 19:49:43, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 09 2011,19:56)
    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 10 2011,00:46)
    I now think Joe is one of you guys.  you know which one.

    I have never seen you two guys in the same room......

    Have you tried Googling with the "safe" option turned off?

    Date: 2011/11/11 12:07:54, Link
    Author: Patrick
    eigenstate counters Gil and casts pearls before swine in an inspiring comment that the typical UD denizen won't understand, let alone appreciate.  Well worth the read.

    Date: 2011/11/20 08:22:33, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Petrushka and DrRec have been hammering on an important point for the past couple of weeks:
    Quote
    The fact that one can easily observe small changes, but no one has ever witnessed an obvious design event makes no difference.

    Shockingly, kairosfocus et al. are steadfastly refusing to answer the challenge.

    Not only are CSI and its many variants undefined, there are no empirical observations that require it as an explanation.  But intelligent design creationism is science, really.

    Date: 2011/11/20 16:05:08, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Ptaylor @ Nov. 20 2011,15:49)
    Quote (Patrick @ Nov. 21 2011,01:22)
    Not only are CSI and its many variants undefined, there are no empirical observations that require it as an explanation.  But intelligent design creationism is science, really.

    BSI77 -    
    Quote
    OT: New Video of William Dembski:

       How Do We Detect Design in Nature? One Minute Apologist With William Dembski – video
       http://www.youtube.com/user/on.....TFsnQo5LE4

    Check it out - the Dr Dr is asked how we detect design in nature and begins (my transcript):
       
    Quote
    Right, well you look at stuff and when you can't figure out what it is you just say 'I guess God did it so that's - uh (laughs) no, that's not how you (specify?) design. That's how we are widely caricatured as saying that you can detect design...

    ...and ends:
       
    Quote
    Who else can the designer be, I mean who else but God could be responsible for, let's say, the structure in the DNA?

    ASSF!

    His two examples are archaeology, where we know that we're looking for human designs and SETI where we're looking for a simple signal.  As usual he extrapolates to an unknown designer with unknown capabilities and unknown limitations that is supposedly detectable via complex signals.

    That's a lot of tard packed into less than two minutes.

    Date: 2011/11/21 09:42:10, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Granville Sewell pops his head above the parapet to demonstrate that one can be a professor of mathematics without ever learning to question one's premises:
    Quote
    Many ID folk seem to be conceding that if life is found on other planets, that would be spectacular confirmation of the materialistic thesis w.r.t. life, and fatal for ID. I don’t follow that logic. If the probability that life could emerge without design is so low that when life emerges once we have to infer design, if it happens more than once it seems we just have to infer design more than once.

    That's right, Granville, there's no reason to think that finding life on other bodies within the solar system might suggest that your probability calculations are in error.

    This seems to be a good place for some sock to point out that he accidentally disabled comments on his second law of thermodynamics thread.

    Date: 2011/11/22 06:51:19, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (sparc @ Nov. 21 2011,23:02)
    If it fits their purposses the DI presents ID as being something like a religion:  
    Quote
       Evidence shows that JPL demoted and terminated Coppedge because he expressed a pro-ID scientific viewpoint disliked at JPL and labeled “religion” by JPL decision-makers.

       “The court’s ruling allows a jury to vindicate David Coppedge’s rights,” said Joshua Youngkin, a legal affairs policy analyst with Discovery Institute. “California law forbids employers who view an employee’s expression as religion to punish or diminish the employee on that basis.”
    On EN&V they are of course quick to add:  
    Quote
    "Although ID is not religion, it can't be singled out by JPL or other employers in this way," added Youngkin.

    Does California law forbid employers who view an employee as an annoyingly ignorant git from punishing or diminishing their roles on that basis?  Since all Intelligent Design Creationists are annoyingly ignorant gits, is it religious discrimination to single them out?

    Date: 2011/11/22 07:39:44, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (sparc @ Nov. 21 2011,23:02)
    If it fits their purposses the DI presents ID as being something like a religion:  
    Quote
       Evidence shows that JPL demoted and terminated Coppedge because he expressed a pro-ID scientific viewpoint disliked at JPL and labeled “religion” by JPL decision-makers.

       “The court’s ruling allows a jury to vindicate David Coppedge’s rights,” said Joshua Youngkin, a legal affairs policy analyst with Discovery Institute. “California law forbids employers who view an employee’s expression as religion to punish or diminish the employee on that basis.”
    On EN&V they are of course quick to add:  
    Quote
    "Although ID is not religion, it can't be singled out by JPL or other employers in this way," added Youngkin.

    I do find it interesting that UD links to a post at EN&V which links to another EN&V post, but there aren't any clear links to external sources.  It's almost as though the intelligent design creationists don't want to make it easy to get to the unfiltered source materials.

    I suppose that could lead to independent thinking and, eventually, dancing.

    Date: 2011/11/22 07:43:21, Link
    Author: Patrick
    The Sensuous Curmudgeon has more detail on the Coppedge v. JPL case, with links to the filings.

    Date: 2011/11/22 13:04:15, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Petrushka patiently explains GAs yet again to the great unwashed at UD:
    Quote
    The intelligence involved in GA is simply a matter of trying to copy what occurs in nature and adapt the process for commercial use.

    You are asserting something equivalent to saying that because wine and beer and bread making systems are intelligently designed, fermentation is not a natural process. That’s just silly.

    Or because roads are intelligently designed, tar and concrete cannot occur naturally.

    Evolution is the inspiration for GAs, but nature is still better at it. Microbes are still developing drug resistance faster than we can engineer drugs.

    ScottAndrews2 throws himself on the logic that could destroy all of UD and sacrifices some of his few remaining neurons to completely miss the point:
    Quote
    Where did you go last time you wanted a beer? Hunting in the woods?

    In all seriousness, I am forced to the conclusion that the intelligent design creationists at UD are a lost cause.  The only reason to monitor them at all is on the off chance that they manage to manifest another political threat to the education system in some backwater town.

    Date: 2011/11/22 14:11:44, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 22 2011,15:02)
    Scott is racing BA77 to the bottom.

    Actually, I suspect that BA77 is laying at the bottom, spread eagled and lubricated, shouting encouragement to Scott.

    Um, not that I've spent any time thinking about it, or anything....

    Date: 2011/11/27 19:18:16, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 27 2011,17:08)
    Somehow I doubt that Byers and the rest of the UD crew constitute the team that Dembski had hoped to field in his showcase for ID - from Dembski at  http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_disciplinedscience.htm in 2002

    Nice salvage work there.  This deserves to be reposted with annotations tracking his metrics over the past nine years.  Perhaps someone at UD would be interested in the project.

    Date: 2011/11/28 07:14:47, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (sparc @ Nov. 28 2011,00:22)
    Regarding the Coppedge case  
    Quote
    a grandmother of seven
    who likes  
    Quote
    to garden, read, study the Bible, and spend time with family
    who is  
    Quote
    not very politically active, but very interested in who is elected to lead our country
    is running a poll

    Poll aside, Coppedge is being portrayed as a Christian martyr by the intelligent design creationists, when in fact he just seems to be a bit of a jerk at work.  Here's my comment from the grandmother of seven's blog (awaiting moderation there):

    Shockingly, the Discovery Institute’s Evolution News & Views isn’t telling the whole story. Coppedge was demoted from an informal lead role not because of the nature of his religious and political views, but because he was harassing his colleagues. The NCSE has all the court documents related to this case available at http://ncse.com/creatio....-v-jpl. See JPL’s filings from 7/1/11 and 10/18/11 for the other side of the story.

    Date: 2011/11/29 06:49:57, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 29 2011,03:15)
    Best put that bottle of single malt scotch away for now.

    That'll really slow down the "research".

    Date: 2011/11/29 13:42:00, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Neil Rickert explains how to get ID taught, using short, easy words:
    Quote
    Quote
    And the reaction to ID has always been to make everything possible to keep it out of the scientific world.
    Personally, I would welcome ID into the science world, once it has developed some significant scientific progress.

    Here’s how to go about it. Start with a research program that produces results so compelling that other scientists have to take notice. Once that happens, you will see scientists wanting to introduce it as a special topic class in graduate school. And, if progress continues, there will be a move to make it a regular graduate class. With further progress, it might eventually filter down to the undergraduate level, and perhaps even to the high school level.

    That’s the way new science enters the curriculum. But you do have to start with the compelling research results.

    That, right there, should shut down all discussion at UD until they have some research results.

    Somehow having no observations to explain, no theory to generate predictions, and no research results doesn't pose a problem for the regulars there.  It's almost as if intelligent design creationism isn't a scientific endeavor.

    Date: 2011/12/06 06:49:56, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (sparc @ Dec. 06 2011,00:24)
    Nobody here seems to care about UD anymore . . . .

    ID is dead.

    Unfortunately, The Panda's Thumb appears dead, too.  Is anyone else unable to connect to that server?

    Date: 2011/12/07 13:03:41, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Woodbine @ Dec. 07 2011,12:57)
    Mistah Tard, he dead!

    ???

    EDIT: Nevermind....must've been a glitch in the matrix.

    Or wishful thinking.

    I don't know if UD going under would be a good or bad thing.  On the one hand, they're not much fun anymore (bitter and vile, in addition to the usual ignorant).  On the other hand, it's nice to have the hard core intelligent design creationist camp followers in one spot -- wouldn't want them running willy nilly about the 'net.

    Date: 2011/12/08 12:30:11, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 08 2011,08:18)
    gpuccio lies and lies and lies:
     
    Quote
    It serves to establish the hypothesis that functional information has been added to the biological world whenever we can witness the emergence of new dFSCI.

    They cannot point to a single example of dFSCi arising.

    . . .

    gpuccio seems to have conveniently forgotten the four part thread on Mark Frank's blog where he squirmed around redefining his bogus metric repeatedly before discontinuing his participation without ever providing a calculation.

    Perhaps a sock over at UD could ask him if his CSI variant is a boolean or measure in bits.  He has claimed both at various times.

    Date: 2011/12/08 12:33:49, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Does a man's honor really "lie between the legs of a woman"?

    Denyse is going to get kairosfocus, bornagain77, Robert Byers, and the rest of the misogynists at UD all hot and bothered with that headline.

    Date: 2011/12/12 09:22:57, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Granville Sewell returns to UD with a description of the strongest arguments against intelligent design creationism.  According to him they are:

    Quote
    The first argument is this: in every other field of science, methodological naturalism has been spectacularly successful, why should evolutionary biology be different?
    . . .
    The second argument is this: there are many things about evolution—the long periods involved, the evidence for common descent, the many evolutionary dead ends, examples of imperfect design—that simply give a strong impression of natural causes.


    Really?  The strongest arguments I see against intelligent design creationism are that it does not offer a scientific hypothesis and it makes no testable predictions.

    Oddly, for Granville, comments appear to be allowed on this thread.

    Date: 2011/12/12 09:30:45, Link
    Author: Patrick
    I just reread Granville's latest and realized I somehow missed this the first time through:
    Quote
    But I also have a purely scientific resolution of this paradox that I find quite satisfactory. It is simply: “evolution may leave an impression that it is an entirely natural process, but it isn’t.”

    Interesting definition of "scientific resolution" you have there, Granville.

    Date: 2011/12/13 13:36:06, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Barry Arrington evidently hasn't been reading the ID literature carefully:
    Quote
    because no ID supporter has ever, as far as I know, argued “X is improbable; therefore X was designed.”

    Isn't that exactly the point of Dembski's "Universal Probability Bound"?

    Date: 2011/12/13 17:54:04, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 13 2011,15:03)
    Quote (Patrick @ Dec. 13 2011,13:36)
    Barry Arrington evidently hasn't been reading the ID literature carefully:
                 
    Quote
    because no ID supporter has ever, as far as I know, argued “X is improbable; therefore X was designed.”

    Isn't that exactly the point of Dembski's "Universal Probability Bound"?

    Barry knows what he is doing and is being deliberately slippery. Dembski and his friends have thrown about the word "impossible" or "unlikely," not "improbable," or only use "improbable" with a made-up definitions and nonsensical criteria that are specious at best. I'm not aware of Dembski using the word "improbable" correctly, and this is just another example of how IDists move the goalposts, and engage in suppressed correlatives and Homunculus fallacies, without conscience. Suddenly, they are using the word "improbable" when it suits them, but what does that mean now? Whatever Barry means it to mean at no particular time.

    Dishonest Dembski: the Universal Probability Bound

    Has Dembski inspired any of his followers to study statistics? No. There you go.

    Wow, predictive tard!  You have gazed almost too deeply into the abyss.

    Date: 2011/12/14 16:21:01, Link
    Author: Patrick
    The few reality-based socks remaining on UD are tackling CSI again.

    Doveton:
    Quote
    I notice you didn’t link to this supposedly provided rigorous definition. Funny how no one here seems to be able to do that. I’ll take your non-response as an admission it’s still not been provided.


    DrREC:
    Quote
    I find this reply a bit unusual.

    First, you keep acting as though fcsi is actually calculatable, in a meaningful manner. I’ve never seen you do it.


    Petrushka:
    Quote
    As I recall, I once asked you if you could identify a sequence that is just one base pair from being functional. Could you pick it out from a batch of purely random sequences?

    What is the dFSCI of a sequence that is just one base pair from being functional?

    Go back!  Go back!  In that way lies madness!

    Date: 2011/12/14 16:25:50, Link
    Author: Patrick
    In all seriousness, it's amusing to watch the intelligent design creationists squirm when it's pointed out that a) they can't actually calculate any of the metrics they're making up, b) they keep lying when they claim to have done so, and c) none of their alphabet soup of acronyms even remotely resemble Dembski's sloppy definition.

    Since gpuccio can never seem to keep his nose out of this topic, I encourage any sock still participating at UD to compare is current claims to the multiple different definitions he put forth in four threads on Mark Frank's blog.

    Date: 2011/12/15 08:28:41, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 15 2011,07:08)
    ID is dead and all that remains is to defile the corpse

    I was wondering what personal character flaw leads me to continue to watch the anti-intellectual train wreck of UD in bemusement and occasional horror.  You have given my compulsion a purpose, thank you.

    Date: 2011/12/18 16:20:57, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (didymos @ Dec. 18 2011,16:49)
    Expect "Street Theatre" to be banninated shortly:
     
    Quote
    The oxymoron that is ID News is merely a synonym for the bitter, and impotent rantings of those scattered die-hards who have yet to understand that the promised scientific, cultural and spiritual revolution has failed.

    Uncommon Descent is reminiscent of Hitler’s bunker in the last days of the war – deluded individuals pushing imaginary battalions of IDEA clubs across the map; an ethereal post-apocalyptic radio station, defiantly transmitting songs of resistance and hope to the faithful.


    Lol.

    The only reason for the delay is that Barry and Denyse are still mud wrestling to see who gets to swing the ban hammer.

    Date: 2011/12/30 15:25:36, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Elizabeth Liddle is back (spending quite a bit of time with Joseph, for some unknown reason), and takes down Granville Sewell with an almost offhand swat:
    Quote
    Quote
    But I’m not going to be drawn further into a discussion with someone who is as insulting as you, and isn’t making any effort to see my point.

    I apologise for insulting you. It was not my intention. I was genuinely surprise that someone could publish an analogy so self-defeating. I still am.

    No one who has read Granville's gross misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics would be surprised.

    Date: 2012/01/01 13:18:36, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Elizabeth Liddle finally tires of Joe:
    Quote
    I’ll take a break from responding to you, I think. It seems to be a waste of both my time and yours.

    Of course, it doesn't waste Joe's time, since that would imply he has something more productive to do than shouting "Does not!  Does not!" as in his response:
    Quote
    Quote
    As for vestigial legs on whales, yes there are.

    Wrong again. Evos only think they are legs because they think whales evolved from some land mammal that had legs. The structures could very well be from FLIPPERS that are no longer developing.

    Yes, Joe, it's all about a priori assumptions, there's no evidence for whale evolution at all.

    Date: 2012/01/02 16:09:31, Link
    Author: Patrick
    In a pleasant deviation from the usual excrescence at HuffPo, Paul Wallace agrees with Jason Rosenhouse that Intelligent Design is Dead, and does so from a Christian perspective.

    The comments are surprisingly sane as well.

    Date: 2012/01/04 09:59:40, Link
    Author: Patrick
    The intelligent design creationists at UD start the year off not with a bang, but continued whimpering.  Vestigial organs aren't, free will exists (all science so far), CSI and its variants are so defined (but no references can be provided), there is no evidence for evolution, and, of course, all non-creationists are liars.

    At least Elizabeth Liddle has shown who the real liars and quote miners are.

    It's not even worth checking in there once a day anymore.

    Date: 2012/01/10 18:08:05, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 10 2012,17:53)
    Or, he's taking a day off and letting an ID chatbot post for him.

    Hmm, just when I was looking for a new lunchtime hack.  Get thee behind me, Ceiling Cat!

    Has anyone tried this already?  A little pattern recognition, maybe some Markov Chaining, a database of common creationist claims, and it would be more interesting than most of the regulars there.

    Date: 2012/01/13 11:42:19, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 13 2012,11:47)
    Kairosfocus has refused to defend his position unless we first apologize for our comment above.

    Apologize for what, exactly?  I read through your whole post and didn't see anything at which one might take umbrage, even given the least possibly generous reading.

    Quote
    Per his request, we are not quoting kairosfocus' remarks.


    For which I thank you as well.

    Date: 2012/01/13 14:06:58, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Apparently kairosfocus' reading comprehension issues include not only find offense where none is present, but in missing it where it is.  GCUGreyArea writes:
    Quote
    KF, I’ve seen, in my view, you slandering misrepresenting and in some cases just plain lying about plenty of others on this forum, yet I ain’t never seen you apologize for nothing.

    To which kairosfocus replies:
    Quote
    You are very close to calling me a liar

    No, I think he actually called you a liar there, dude.

    Date: 2012/01/15 14:00:33, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 15 2012,14:22)
    New Dembski interview.

    Link.

    Mentions of the global flood he had to accept as real in order to keep his job: Zero.

     
    Quote
    Ultimately, I think ID will win. A few years ago, I thought I’d be around to see its victory. Now, I’m not so sure. The Bible actually gives me great comfort in this regard, because one sees in it that God’s purposes are not generally carried out by the flamboyant, well-placed, and powerful. But in the end, the false prophets are always clearly identified, and those who were true are vindicated. ID, in my view, plays a prophetic role for our culture.


    But what's ID got to do with the Bible Dembski?

    And, quelle surprise, comments are not allowed.

    Date: 2012/01/16 13:27:16, Link
    Author: Patrick
    gpuccio sets himself up again:
    Quote
    Show me an algorithm that can output new original dFSCI, such as complex language output, and we will discuss.

    I'd be happy to, gpuccio.  Just provide a rigorous mathematical definition of dFSCI so that we can both measure it independently and come up with the same answer.  Surely you're not just talking nonsense, are you?

    Date: 2012/01/16 16:45:01, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 16 2012,17:01)
    WAD quote

    Quote
    As it is, I’m leaving my present post at Southwestern Seminary and returning as a full-time fellow of Discovery later this year (2012).



    EXPELLED!

    Apparently his recantation of his Teh Flud remarks weren't quite enough for his Troggie masters.  They know WAD is just paying them lip service.

    And like the Romster said, if you don't like a service you can get great pleasure out of FIRING IT!

    Buh-bye, WAD, you are shot!

    The Discovery Institute pays well enough to be a full-time job?  It seems my parents raised me poorly, what with all the focus on working hard and providing value in exchange for monetary compensation.

    Date: 2012/01/16 18:38:22, Link
    Author: Patrick
    While Elizabeth Liddle spanks gpuccio, Nick Matzke has nailed one of Upright Biped's feet to the floor:
    Quote
    With regard to information, the main question I’m interested in is, if a gene is duplicated, and one copy get modified such that it has a different specificity or function, has the amount of information in the genome increased?

    I think, on any reasonable definition of “information”, the answer is “yes”. But this causes a problem for creationists/ID advocates, because they have invested a huge amount in the proposition that only intelligence can produce new information, and that natural processes such as evolution cannot.

    Thus, to defend their assertion, they have to invent all kinds of unreasonable and question-begging “definitions” of “information”.

    So, what’s your answer to the gene duplication question?

    Upright Biped then spins in circles spewing aspersions on Nick's character without answering that one very simple question that destroys every IDiot claim that known evolutionary mechanisms can't create information.

    Date: 2012/01/17 14:19:39, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Joe keeps up the civil tone at UD:
    Quote
    Nice move jerk

    I'm sure kairosfocus will swoop in and have the vapors all over that thread real soon now.

    Date: 2012/01/17 14:52:42, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 17 2012,15:42)
    Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 17 2012,14:31)
    Quote (Patrick @ Jan. 17 2012,14:19)
    Joe keeps up the civil tone at UD:
     
    Quote
    Nice move jerk

    I'm sure kairosfocus will swoop in and have the vapors all over that thread real soon now.

    Isn't Joe the banned Joseph?

    I was weak, I just couldn't let this go.

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-415423

    I particularly liked what you said above that:
    Quote
    SHOW US!!!!!

    This is the same thing we’ve been asking you for years Joe (and all IDists). Quit telling us it’s been done and show us it has.

    Where was it done?
    Who did it?
    When?
    Where was it published?

    This pattern of skipping from claiming "We could do that." to claiming "We did that." without going through the actual effort of doing anything is one of the more infuriatingly dishonest techniques of the intelligent design creationists.  I'm glad someone has the patience to continue to point this out.

    Date: 2012/01/17 19:19:06, Link
    Author: Patrick
    New blood sock Peter Griffin stands with one foot over the abyss:
    Quote
    I can’t actually find any resources on the calculation of this metric so please provide a demonstration or link to future resources on how to specifically calculate dFSCI for distinct bodies of text.

    I also have some further questions about dFSCI but I’ll save them for the moment. Most will be no doubt answered once I fully understand how to apply it to language output, as you seem to be able to do gpuccio.

    Turn back, man!  In that way lies transnetism and madness!

    Date: 2012/01/20 15:50:42, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 20 2012,15:28)
    Quote (Raevmo @ Jan. 20 2012,08:41)
    [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/biology/id-foundations-15a-a-testable-id-hypothesis-front-loading-part-a-a-guest-post-by-genomicus

    /comment-page-1/#comment-416085]Peter Griffin is back at UD.[/URL]

    I am so ashamed that I wrongly accused Gordon E. Mullings of Montserrat of something he didn't do. <bows head in shame>

    Not so quick!

     
    Quote
    kairosfocus: NOTICE: In addition, PG has chosen to misrepresent the design inference. This is a disciplinary warning, as his behaviour is verging on being trollish. If he is serious, he should now take time to say work through the introductory summary here. The FAQs in the resources tab top of this and every UD page will also be helpful. If PG does not fix tone and substance, disciplinary steps will be taken, escalating from the level already taken. KF

    It would be a lot easier to avoid misrepresenting the intelligent design creationists positions if any were supported by more than one person.  I've been very impressed with the reality-based participants at UD over the past few months -- they've made it painfully clear to all but the most willfully deluded that there is nothing of substance behind ID.  There are no observations to explain, no hypotheses, no supporting evidence or rational arguments.  ID "theory" is being daily exposed as nothing more than that ol' time religion combined with well-known creationist claims that demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of biology.

    I applaud the patience of those who continue to interact with the inmates of UD, but I can't help but wonder what would happen if the IDiots were left to their own devices for a month.  Would it go moribund or, be still my heart, would the real crazy manifest?

    Date: 2012/01/23 19:52:43, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 23 2012,20:35)
    Quote (The whole truth @ Jan. 23 2012,19:23)
    Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 23 2012,06:45)
       
    Quote (The whole truth @ Jan. 23 2012,08:15)
       
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 23 2012,03:25)
    Well, Cornelius provides good fun, too.


    Yeah, Cornelius and his little flock of indoctrinated sheep are fun to prod and play with.

    Yeah, it's an addiction.  I just don't feel right unless I get a cuss out from Joe in my inbox every morning.

    Too bad he's too scared to say how he really feels on the UD board.

    Also too bad that they refuse to actually discuss ID there.

    You know what we ought to do.  We ought to start an ID board that actually talks about ID, presents coherent arguments, etc.  We could drive visitors from UD to our site.

    We'd become the biggest pro-ID site in the world.  

    Then, we tell everyone that, after all this time, we haven't actually found any evidence for ID and therefore must abandon it as a hypothesis.


    The ultimate in sock puppetry... a whole puppet website.



    Your idea of a puppet site is interesting. The hard part would be coming up with coherent arguments for ID.

    I've noticed that joe has been dishing out a lot of insulting remarks on UD lately but as you say he's afraid to say what he really feels. It's entertaining to watch him cowardly dodge direct challenges from you and others to actually back up his claims. He always resorts to calling his opponents a coward even though he and the other IDiots are the ones who always run away from substantiating their claims.

    The recent challenge from eigenstate to kairosfocus (gordon elliott mullings) that gordo is running away from as fast as he can is especially demonstrative of just how empty ID 'theory' is. gordo's dictatorial tantrums, and threats of disciplinary steps and beatings with "Mr. Leathers", not only show how crazy gordo is but also how bald his assertions are. gordo, joe, and the rest of the IDiots obviously think that just because they say it, everyone else better believe it, and that settles it, or else! Their dictatorial attitude is just like that of their imaginary god. In their feeble minds, they ARE god.

    There has been an offer of support for such an enterprise.  I'm not willing to take up solely, though I would be willing to admin/mod it.

    If there is some interest in articles and discussion, then I would be willing to ask for the site and contribute (some) and admin/mod...

    Date: 2012/01/23 21:01:32, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (eigenstate @ Jan. 23 2012,21:22)
    *face palm*

    I have the exact same feeling now. dFSCI makes homeopathy look grounded by comparison. So gpuccio is the "homeopathic practitioner" of the ID world. That's too bad for him, but really, it's just an embarrassing joke on me to get led down the yellow brick road that far.

    I am chump, I'm sorry to report.

    Nah, he's very good at continuously changing his definitions when you get close to wringing a straight answer out of him.  I wasted a huge amount of time over four threads on Mark Frank's blog as gpuccio's definition of dFSCI mutated from a qualitative metric that could be measured in a specific number of bits to a quantitative "it looks kinda designed" indicator.

    gpuccio has repeatedly proven himself to be just as dishonest as kairosfocus, albeit more articulate.

    Date: 2012/01/25 14:30:50, Link
    Author: Patrick
    champignon summarizes the core failings of CSI succinctly:
    Quote
    As promised, my reasons for rejecting CSI (and dFSCI and Chi_500, which are really the same) as a reliable indicator of design:

    1. CSI is based on the probability of finding a target by blind search. Evolution does not work that way.

    2. CSI assumes there is a specific target with a specific function. Evolution doesn’t aim at specific targets. Any variation that improves fitness will be favored by natural selection, regardless of what its function is. Whatever works, works as far as evolution is concerned.

    3. CSI assumes that design is the default. In other words, if “chance and necessity” can’t be demonstrated, in detail, for a particular phenomenon, then Dembski claims that we are entitled to assume design by default.

    4. Dembski glosses over the fact that if he wants CSI to definitively indicate design, what he calls “the chance hypothesis” has to encompass far more than mere blind search. It has to include all non-design ways in which the phenomenon in question could have arisen. He is not entitled to assume, for example, that evolution could not have produced the phenomenon. That, after all, is the very question that CSI is supposed to help us answer!

    It’s quite pitiful, when you think about it. Ever since Darwin, people have tried to argue that “X is really, really complicated; I’ll bet it couldn’t have evolved.” CSI was supposed to give us a reliable way of identifying design. Instead, Dembski has simply defined CSI to stand in for “really, really complicated” in that ‘argument’, where “really complicated” means “couldn’t have been found by blind search.” Well, duh. The real question, both before Dembski and after, is “could it have evolved”?

    CSI (and dFSCI and Chi_500) have changed nothing.

    I know a number of people, particularly here and on the Panda's Thumb, have spent a great deal of time refuting Dembski's nonsense in detail, and those refutations are important.  However, this is one of the few times I've seen it written in words small enough for the typical UD denizen to comprehend.  Not that they will comprehend it, but they could.

    Date: 2012/01/25 15:04:12, Link
    Author: Patrick
    gpuccio complains about Lehigh's Behe disclaimer:
     
    Quote
    Those disclaimers were for me one of the meanest things I have ever witnessed.

    Really?  You must lead a sheltered life, gpuccio.  (I note in passing that you have implicitly admitted to never reading anything kairosfocus writes.)

    Here's the disclaimer from Lehigh'ss website:
     
    Quote
    Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design"

    The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

    The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

    That's not mean, that's a simple statement of fact.

    Here are some more statements of fact for you, gpuccio:  Intelligent design creationism is a failed fraudulent attempt to work around the constitutional prohibitions against teaching religious beliefs in public school science classes.  There has never been a scientific hypothesis for intelligent design creationism, it has never generated any testable predictions, and even a Christian judge with no scientific training could easily see that it is a political ploy, not a scientific endeavor.  The only people still pushing this ridiculous concept are the disingenous members of the Discovery Institute who are looking for a meal ticket, their equally mendacious Dominionist backers, and a double handful of morons, psychopaths, and mental defectives inhabiting Uncommon Descent.

    After the Bar Closes exists not to refute the nonsense being propagated by scientific illiterates such as yourself and the other regulars at UD, but to laugh at you.  Ridicule is the only rational response to dangerous fools who are attempting to destroy science education in this country.  When your political power is as spent as your meager intellectual capital, we can move on to simply ignoring you.

    Do you still think Lehigh's disclaimer is mean?

    Date: 2012/01/28 18:14:34, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2012,18:58)
    Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 28 2012,17:15)
    Omnkiscience has to be a drag. If I were omniscient and omnipotent I'd make something that would surprise me.

    WRT to "God", this has always vexxed me. Why do ANYTHING? You KNOW the outcome..

    The logical (?) conclusion to derive from this is that reality is simply god's thoughts.  Omniscient doesn't imply infinitely fast.

    Date: 2012/01/29 16:58:51, Link
    Author: Patrick
    vjtorley brings up CSI, as defined by Dembski, again:
    Quote
    Anyway, I’m just using Professor Dembski’s definition of CSI in The Design of Life, which stipulates two conditions: (i) the pattern in question identifies a highly improbable event; (ii) the pattern is easily described.

    Perhaps a particularly cruel sock puppet would be interested in pointing out that vjtorley himself applied Dembski's non-rigorous algorithm to a gene duplication event and was forced to conclude that this known evolutionary mechanism could create CSI.  Naturally, much rhetorical squirming followed during which the constraint in Dembski's original question from Specification:  The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence, "Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?", was ignored by every intelligent design creationist posting in response.

    Date: 2012/01/30 06:50:19, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (paragwinn @ Jan. 29 2012,20:59)
    Quote (Patrick @ Jan. 29 2012,14:58)
    Perhaps a particularly cruel sock puppet would be interested in pointing out that vjtorley himself applied Dembski's non-rigorous algorithm to a gene duplication event and was forced to conclude that this known evolutionary mechanism could create CSI.

    I'm not cruel, I'm just woven that way.

    (apologies to Jessica Rabbit in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?", 1988)

    Of course, now you'll be accused of being MathGrrl and your point will be ignored.

    Date: 2012/01/30 06:59:39, Link
    Author: Patrick
    champignon gives kairosfocus some much needed correction here:
    Quote
    I’m ashamed to say that when I read Gil’s post and your subsequent comments, I actually believed that the songwriter was expressing approval of the burning of synagogues. I figured that you and Gil couldn’t possibly be brazen enough to quote mine the song lyrics, particularly when anyone could look them up online. Well, you and Gil have stooped that low, and you can bet I won’t be assuming your honesty in the future.

    and here:
    Quote
    Onlookers,

    Imagine the outcry from kairosfocus if an atheist had quotemined a Christian song in order to smear Christianity. We’d get 500+ indignant lines talking about how “evo mat” amorality was leading to the destruction of civilization.

    What hypocrisy.

    Could this be the combination of posts that finally increase the pressure in kairosfocus head beyond the structural limits of his skull?

    Date: 2012/01/31 06:46:40, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Elizabeth Liddle explains quotemining so clearly that even kairosfocus should be able to understand it:
    Quote
    It is quotemining to extract lines that imply that they are advocating church-burning when in fact their lyrics clearly condemn it.

    In fact it’s the very paradigm of quote-mining – to take a quotation out of context to make it appear that the author meant the actual opposite of what s/he intended. I don’t blame you or Gil, because the source seems to be Fox News, but now that the actual meaning has been pointed out, it should be corrected.

    Sure they use rude words about religion. But that is a whole different issue.

    kairosfocus, unsurprisingly, is constitutionally incapable of admitting error:
    Quote
    perhaps it escaped you that all along I had linked the entire video? That I took time to start from its images and discuss the song in context, or that I have now provided essentially the whole song above?

    That doesn't change the fact that you quoted two lines out of context with the deliberate intention of misleading people into concluding that the lyrics meant exactly the opposite of what the band intended, kairosfocus.

    One wonders how such arrogance survives contact with reality which continuously emphasizes how unfounded it is.

    Date: 2012/01/31 08:40:40, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Amadan @ Jan. 31 2012,08:58)
    Quote (Patrick @ Jan. 31 2012,12:46)
    One wonders how such arrogance survives contact with reality which continuously emphasizes how unfounded it is.

    I think you're missing the point.

    The arrogance is the means by which the intrusive demands of reality are kept at bay.

    What is being protected is a fairly narrowly drawn (and that with both eyes closed while holding a damp crayon) tribalistic identity. 'Us' versus 'The Unspeakable Others', as it were.

    Fair point, but kairosfocus appears to take it to the next level.  He's certainly fearful of the Other (although one might wish he found it more unspeakable).  What comes across more strongly to me is his profound resistance to admitting error.  His capacity for self-reflection and learning seems limited to the point of non-existence.

    In the post referenced, for example, he continues on to attack the band that wrote the lyrics he quote mined.  This strikes me as a characteristically childish response, ignoring or taking offense at criticism without even considering that it might be valid.

    While kairosfocus' intelligence, education, and integrity are more than questionable, his ability to survive cognitive dissonance that would overwhelm other minds is pretty impressive.

    Date: 2012/02/01 08:07:47, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 01 2012,02:49)
    My ID prediction:

    Within a day or two we will see a new "She Said It" OP from KF, consisting of >3000 words concerning the amorality of Elizabeth Liddle and non-christians in general, deconstructing quote-mined phrases  from her comments at great length and once again expounding the same outraged indignation regarding the lyrics of Hysteria.  There will be honourable mentions for Plato, Aristotle and Alinsky, but Lewontin will not make an appearance.

    . . .

    Not much of a longshot prediction, I know ... but it's all I got!

    Don't sell yourself short.  Predicting that kairosfocus won't repeat his quote mine of Lewontin is definitely a longshot.

    Date: 2012/02/01 17:05:43, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Now that Dembski is going to have more time on his hands, being relieved of his vacation bible school duties, perhaps he'll address the issue of CSI.  Elizabeth Liddle has provided him with a perfect opportunity, and on his own blog no less:
    Quote
    Quote
    This is fine if all arrangements are equiprobable. But what if they’re not?

    Exactly! In other words, in order to do the calculation for the quantity Dembski calls CSI, the “pattern that signifies intelligence” you have to know the probability of the observed pattern under the null. And Dembski makes absolutely no attempt to even begin to calculate that. And that’s the gaping vacuum at the heart of ID – or at least at the heart of Dembski’s ID.

    Date: 2012/02/03 07:28:35, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 02 2012,22:19)
    eigenstate sails close to the wind in his response to the sanctimonious and condescending Timaeus. Excerpt:
       
    Quote
    Understand and agree! I will insist on a key asymmetry here, though. PZ Myers, for all his “uncouthness”, can deliver, intellectually, when he wants to, or needs to. He’s a heavy-weight, or a heft medium-weight when it counts to the difficult work of intellectual performance and knowledge building. Dembski is a con man, though, a lightweight, a poser. He makes lots of social blunders, too, I note, but he doesn’t have the redeeming substance of actually being able to deliver where it really counts. That’s not a hard rule for ID advocates, as I said above. There are ID advocates who are serious, thoughtful, deserving of respectful dialog and discourse, even if I/we disagree vehemently on the merits of the argument. Uncommon Descent just doesn’t attract, seek or develop that. It’s an intellectual ghetto here, a place for the scorned and dissonance-discomfited to get a shot in the arm for their superstitions. That is Dembski’s legacy, here, a heritage of ressentiment.

    My emphasis
    (I think I'll save the whole thing just in case, well, you know).
    ETA: That was from post 20 on that thread. eigenstate also posted #19, which I had missed: also worth a read.

    eigenstate's posts on that thread are amazing, and would never have been allowed by DaveScot.

    "There’s really no way to sugar-coat the realization that this blog is largely RUN by trolls."

    Date: 2012/02/03 08:23:35, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Timaeus demonstrates that being the most intelligent and honest intelligent design creationist at UD is very similar to being the tallest Munchkin in the Lollipop Guild:
    Quote
    I’d rather see direct criticism of the big players, written by people who use their real names. . . .

    Real names are important to you, Timaeus?

    Date: 2012/02/04 10:22:56, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 04 2012,11:12)
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 03 2012,20:24)

    Diffaxial posted about eight months or so during which he had some blistering exchanges, particularly with StephenB. To be honest, after all that I was surprised when he was banned. He was reincarnated a few more months as Voice Coil. A few other characters sounded suspiciously like him, and made only brief appearances.

    Some time later Clive Hayden, who moderated UD during that period (but seems to be missing in action for the last six months or so), entered a discussion on moderation at UD that arose at Biologos. You can read his post-hoc rationalizations here. The discussion starts on comment page 19 and continues to the end of the thread.

    Cool, thanks. The exchanges with StephenB I remember well. Hadn't seen the back forth with Hayden at Biologos, so that'll be something interested to go read.

    I'm particularly interested in which UD partisans venture out of the safe confines of UD and how they fare when they do. I know DaveScot didn't do too well when he didn't have the Banninator in hand. It would be entertaining to see Arrington or KF or Upright Biped have to operate on more neutral ground.

    Upright BiPed showed up on Lizzie's blog for a short period.  Once the obfuscatory language surrounding his "semiotic argument" was pared off, it turned out (Shock!  Horror!) that there is no there there.

    Date: 2012/02/04 13:57:48, Link
    Author: Patrick
    TheBestSchools.org blog is allowing comments on longish interview with Dembski.

    I'm busy all afternoon, please don't fill up all their storage before I get back.

    This image seems appropriate:

    Date: 2012/02/06 16:04:26, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 06 2012,16:44)
    A few hits from around the world on Gordo's blog is sufficient charge to keep his tin foil hat on for weeks:
     
    Quote
    Let us do an empirical test, since we know that the usual anti ID sites monitor us closely, and have a very wide audience that is literally global. (I know that though the pattern of hits on my personal blog when these sites try to play rhetorical games with what I have had to say.)


    Hardly. Nobody is playing rhetorical games with what you have to say. We're just taking the piss.

    One of these days kairosfocus et al. may come to realize that no one except the other inmates at UD takes them seriously.  The ability to not recognize that a large group of educated, intelligent people are laughing at you is a powerful psychological defense mechanism.

    Date: 2012/02/07 07:42:31, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 07 2012,07:49)
    Everyone could perhaps just leave UD to shrivel in a succession of 1-or-2-comment bits of 'News'. It's only the 'materialists' that stir up any real interest in a thread - and that very interest makes the denizens think their movement is a significant force - they don't realise it is simply individuals arguing against bad philosophy and bad science, mostly for fun.

    I personally would love to see what would happen at UD if all reality-based commenters would take a two month sabbatical.  It will never happen, unfortunately, for the reason famously summarized by xkcd:



    Quote
    I can't even be arsed reading threads that KF is participating in. Life is too short to penetrate that god-awful prose. But if Elizabeth is prepared to dissect his arguments ... she will naver make him see what he is, but it serves to bring it to the attention of others.

    I do wonder how the 'moderates' feel about the way their case is pursued.

    This would be an interesting question for a suicidal sock to raise.

    Date: 2012/02/07 11:12:08, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 07 2012,10:05)
    My long standing desire to watch the place wither and die remains true, and so one of my new years resolutions is to never disturb their site-counters again. I've cracked a few times when someone has posted something so ball crushingly dumb that I simply had to look. But, like any bad habit you keep on trying.

    I had hoped that Google's Sidewiki would provide a widely used alternative mechanism for commenting on UD posts.  Sadly, it has been discontinued.  I do think it is still the right approach; the compulsion to respond to the brazen idiocy, hypocrisy, ignorance, and outright dishonesty at UD ensures a small but steady stream of non-delusional participants.

    It would be interesting to set up a site specifically for discussing UD posts and comments, with links back to the original material.  This would meet the needs of those who can't resist the urge to correct the UD denizens and preserve the very interesting and valuable content they produce while denying UD both the traffic and the ability to censor the discussion.

    If anyone else thinks this could work, uncensoreddescent.org is available.

    Date: 2012/02/08 08:43:20, Link
    Author: Patrick
    eigenstate tries spoon feeding Joe:
    Quote
    The universe is an isolated system, but the earth isn’t the universe. It receives enormous amounts of energy from the sun. And photosynthesis is an everyday process happening around you that harnesses the sun’s energy to grow and sustain plants. Those plants store energy received from the sun, which is available for work, and can, in turn sustain grazing animals or other organisms that can convert that stored energy in the plant into energy available for their use.

    Biology is sun-powered.

    Granville Sewell's creationist second law nonsense is laid bare in a single paragraph.

    Of course, like any petulant child, Joe will spit up what he's been fed without digesting any of it.

    Date: 2012/02/08 09:01:30, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 08 2012,09:34)
    I'm not assuming that she is submissive, I'm observing it.

    . . .

    Remember what I said about lions, limping prey, that I can see EL's weaknesses, and so the predatory IDiots can too?

    . . .

    The fatal error is to let a predator see you limp.

    I understand and empathize with your anger towards many of the UD regulars.  The majority of them are beyond the reach of reason.  Their behavior is appalling ungentlemanly and would warrant physical confrontation in a face-to-face discussion.

    That being said, I believe you are interpreting Lizzie's mien completely incorrectly.  I am truly amazed at her ability to remain centered and grounded in the midst of the belligerence to which she is subjected at UD.  As with any situation, we can't control how others act, but we are responsible for our own reactions.  Lizzie is speaking her truth, and doing so eloquently.  The grace she exhibits exemplifies what in my meditative practice is called the divine feminine.  Her responses are not only an intellectual pleasure to read but a source of inspiration, reflecting some aspects of my own personality that I would like to strengthen.

    Elizabeth Liddle is by far the most dominant person currently posting at UD.

    Date: 2012/02/08 09:31:59, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 08 2012,10:18)
    And frankly, from what I've seen lately, I'd say that eigenstate and champignon (sp?) are doing a lot better at UD than EL.

    I appreciate all their efforts.  I spent several months there carefully keeping my temper in check; I know how hard it is.

    Date: 2012/02/08 11:29:26, Link
    Author: Patrick
    I have a degree in chemical engineering.  The idiotic statements about the second law are raising my blood pressure and sorely tempting me to sock up.
    Quote
    Joe:
    Living organisms arising from non-living matter via unplanned, unguided, blind processes would violate the second law.

    Would someone over there please ask him to show the math behind that claim?

    Date: 2012/02/08 12:20:04, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 08 2012,13:13)
    If UD, and what is said there by the IDiots, are unimportant, why does this site exist, why does this thread exist, and why are threads about UD the most popular ones on this site? And, why are there many other sites that focus a lot of attention on UD and what the IDiots say there?

    Two reasons immediately spring to mind:

    a) These nitwits and those who take them seriously vote.  Public refutations of their nonsense may sway the views of lurkers.

    b) At some point the only appropriate response to willfully ignorant claims is to point and laugh.  Intelligent design creationists have earned mockery.

    Date: 2012/02/08 12:36:20, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 08 2012,13:31)
    anybody "lurking" over there is either one of us or drank the kool aid.  

    But, but, but kairosfocus assures me that there are many onlookers!

    Okay, you're right.  I'll add another reason to the list:

    c) Some of us are exhibiting a character flaw similar to that of school children who make fun of their classmates who ride the short bus.

    Date: 2012/02/10 11:25:37, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Febble @ Feb. 10 2012,12:17)
    I thought I'd just got the captcha wrong (again!), but no.

    Excellent!  Now you can spend more time on your blog!

    A not-so-secret admirer.

    Date: 2012/02/10 13:07:55, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (REC @ Feb. 10 2012,13:55)
    Wow, sorry about the collateral damage.

    Scorched earth over there...and JoeG just got a second warning from Barry, for a post that came 3 hours before his first warning.

    Yup, Barry is playing internet tough guy over there:
    Quote
    Bullwinkle says he is hopelessly befuddled as to the difference between the obscenity directed at me and the phrase “sad and pathetic.” In light of that I decided he would be happier not commenting on this site. Anyone else want to push me today?

    Happily, Barry, you lying, hypocritical bitch.  Come play in an open forum.

    Date: 2012/02/10 13:10:22, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Looking through the most recent posts, Chas D is the only non-creationist left posting.  Can he last the day?

    Date: 2012/02/10 14:12:51, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 10 2012,14:30)
    There you have it. A Friday meltdown. And a fine specimen, too.

    Could it be the final meltdown?

    Date: 2012/02/10 14:55:36, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Robin @ Feb. 10 2012,15:31)
    Quote (BillB @ Feb. 10 2012,14:11)
     
    Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 10 2012,20:07)
    This would be a good time to let UD die, by not engaging them and letting them have their "fun" on their unfairly moderated turf. As doveton said in regard to the "major house cleaning":

    "It will be interesting to see what the post count goes down to with no one here to give a compelling reason to comment. Well…except for an occasion “Oh yeah!” and “Couldn’t agree more!” Explain to me where the fun for the pro-IDer is in that exactly?"

    Looks like Doveton is out as well.

    Wait...what? What happened to Doveton and how do you know the person has been banned?

    ETA: Ahh...I see it now. The Voice in the Ceiling:

    Quote
    UD: Doveton’s out. Anyone else?

    Peter Griffin appears to be trying to get on Barry's radar, popping up like a whack-a-mole.

    The idea of sealing UD closed to outside influence has appealed to me for some time.  I never expected them to be locking the door from the inside, though.

    Date: 2012/02/11 09:35:47, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Speaking of Dembski, I'm wondering if it's possible that the Friday Meltdown ™ by Barry "push me" Arrington is related to Dembski's imminent (and I suspect involuntary) departure from the vacation bible school he currently graces with his presence.  Is this a housecleaning before daddy gets home?

    Date: 2012/02/13 15:50:42, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (BillB @ Feb. 13 2012,05:12)
    Someone challenges KF to stand up and be counted:    
    Quote
    KF,
       
    Quote
    I would be interested to see such, if it exists.

    I agree and I am glad to see that eigenstates response was cross posted at Elizabeth Liddles site here. It certainly seems odd that his reply didn’t get through here although I see that several people have attempted to post links from this thread to eigenstates reply for you and others to see. Unfortunately is seems those comments have also disappeared.

    We could be uncharitable to eigenstate and conclude that he didn’t actually post his reply here, but simply claimed to have, then claimed to have been banned in order to smear the moderators of this blog. But as you charitably pointed out it could also be a simple error on his part, or an error in the site – I would imagine that given Mr Arringtons statement above that eigenstate would be given the right to post the first comment, some system would have been put in place for this thread to place all comments in moderation until eigenstates appeared in the que, and could be published. Perhaps this system was to blame.

    On the other hand we have the problem of commentators linking to eigenstates reply being banned, and the comments vanishing. We might infer from this that Mr Arrington is being less than honest, perhaps even that he simply decided to pretend that eigenstate never posted a reply in order to smear eigenstate. It would be truly sad if this were the case and I hope that distinguished contributors like yourself would be brave enough to stand up to this type of behaviour – although I understand that it would probably get you banned as well (assuming that the inference about Mr Arrington was correct of course).

    With that in mind I will try an experiment – posted below is eigenstates reply, which he claimed to have posted here already. If this post of mine disappears, and I am banned, we have more reason to infer that Mr Arrington is, for whatever reason, playing games rather than pursuing honest debate. In which case I would encourage you to try the experiment yourself, post eigenstates reply here, and see if it (and perhaps you) remain on this site!

    ....
    ...


    Eigenstates reply was included, and a link to it on Elizabeths site.

    Barry is probably asleep right now, hopefully that will mean the comment persists long enough for KF and others to have good look.

    That didn't last long.

    Barry "big lie" Arrington not only demonstrates his complete disdain for free speech and truth by eliminating posts that document his gutless behavior, he then has the nerve to add this edit:
    Quote
    Another update: At another site Eigenstate says he responded here, which is an outrageous lie.

    Barry, you are a proven liar and intellectual coward.  C'mon, threaten me for speaking the truth.

    Date: 2012/02/14 11:30:37, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 14 2012,09:50)
    Just think, this unscrupulous, deluded shyster could someday be a judge:

    arrington's idea of overwhelming evidence and FACT

    You mean stuff like this:
    Quote
    “The problem here is that after 2,000 years, it is impossible to prove something like, say, the resurrection.”

    Well, it depends on what you are willing to accept for proof. If you are willing to accept the overwhelming historical record, including hundreds of eyewitnesses, then yes the resurrection can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

    followed by this:
    Quote
    I never said we have the testimony of hundreds of eyewitnesses. I said the record states there were hundreds of eyewitnesses.

    A record written decades after the alleged events by persons unknown with political axes to grind, Barry?  This is what passes for evidence in Colorado courts?

    Date: 2012/02/14 18:17:52, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 14 2012,18:42)
    Chris Doyle opines:
    Quote
    No doubt that quality is better than quantity in this respect. Even if that means we end up with no ID critics here because not one of them is capable of approaching the debate with any kind of serious rational or empirical basis to their contributions. That is, after all, the destiny of all universal truth.

    I'm reluctant to suspect Barry of having thought out a long-term plan when all the evidence suggests a drunk monkey staggering around with a meat cleaver.  But Doyle may be onto something here.  

    Perhaps the next few days will bring us:
    1.  A final round of bannination;
    2.  A announcement that only fellow-creationists meet UD's exalted standards of debate;
    3.  Declaration of victory;
    4.  Pack up, delete everything, and go home.

    We could be living in the UD End Times.

    Ah, you optimist, you.

    Date: 2012/02/14 20:49:53, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 14 2012,19:32)
    I'm still predicting the Second Coming of DrDr Bill.

    Of all the many purges, this is the most artificial.

    Something's coming, and it isn't just Barry Arrington.

    We shall be able to proclaim "I told you so." when it comes to pass.

    Date: 2012/02/14 21:49:58, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 14 2012,22:34)
    Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 14 2012,22:09)
    There's a few options on the table, now.

    1) Just yer classic meltdown.

    2) The imminent return of Dr.Dr Dembski (pbuh).

    3) UD is going to re-model itself along ENV lines - i.e. we'd rather you just sit and listen.

    4) ......

    5)  stephen and barry fellate each other to death while gordon mullings strokes a priapism that looking at tranmaw can't kill.  gil plays gpuccio a love song but he can't get out of the mirror long enough to entertain the affection.  gloppy ruptures dembski but offers him a graduate student health insurance plan that comes with a cafeteria meal plan, and then davescot drives the floating mushroom barge up onto the beach and sets the whole place on fire then calls eric pianka and tells him to fuck off and nevermind. no one remembers to get sal out of the stocks in the basement so he is collateral damage

    "Pass me another creationist, this one's split!"

    With apologies to Mary Gentle and people having anything resembling good taste.

    Date: 2012/02/15 10:07:47, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 15 2012,07:25)
    Chris Doyle:



    Chris forgot the part about how he got waxed in debate, deleted a couple lengthy threads in their entirety to hide the evidence (including many others' posts), and fled.

    Love to link to it, but...

    He didn't delete them, he relocated them:
    Quote
    Nothing was deleted, it was merely relocated to another location once the last remaining traces of reasonable discussion were lost forever.

    In a tough field, Chris Doyle is rapidly moving up the rankings of "most dishonest UD poster".

    I must remember to send him a thank you note for helping me to discover some anger triggers I need to let go of on my path to enlightenment.

    Date: 2012/02/15 11:08:37, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Robin @ Feb. 15 2012,11:28)
    Truth be told, I don't even hold any anger or animosity towards Barry or anyone else at UD. I mean, it's a blog...how serious is the exchange on it really in the context of things?

    I'm not angry about the bannings, especially since I didn't have a sock in that fight.  Barry has every right to run UD however he wishes.

    I do get angry about the hypocrisy, lack of respect for freedom of speech, willful ignorance, and blatant dishonesty on display there.  I'm extremely angry that these people can affect my life and the education of my children by voting based on their arrogantly held, essentially ridiculous beliefs.

    UD is a joke.  Dominionism and related movements are a threat.

    Date: 2012/02/15 11:11:41, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 15 2012,12:03)
    Until then all evos are just pieces of shit fucking assholes.

    I hope you wash that mouth before tongue kissing Barry and kairosfocus.

    Date: 2012/02/15 22:36:10, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (MichaelJ @ Feb. 15 2012,17:45)
    I find the current purge a bit of a yawn. I predict that within a week or two people will don new socks and the cycle will repeat itself once again. It would be nice if people could refrain from visiting the site for a month just to see if the site would implode.

    Elizabeth Liddle's blog is well positioned to replace UD.  Even Gil Dodgen has shown up.  It must be a classy place.

    Date: 2012/02/19 11:05:43, Link
    Author: Patrick
    From /r/Atheism on Reddit today:

    Date: 2012/02/19 11:27:48, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ Feb. 19 2012,12:25)
    Quote (keiths @ Feb. 19 2012,09:54)
     
    Quote
    Our Gil Dodgen now contributes at Elizabeth Liddle’s Skeptical Zone

    Yes, Denyse.  And Elizabeth's status at UD is?

    They are desperately trying to get Elizabeth Liddle to post again at UD. Bully Bannington already publicly invited her to come back - see our Blog Tsar Thread. Currently they are witnessing a lively discussion going on at Dr Liddle's blog, with some UD heavies participating. So they want to get that traffic back. I hope that's not going to happen.

    I'd love to know what's going on behind the scenes at UD - are they tearing Bully Bannington to pieces for killing off UD?

    Resist, Lizzie!  They don't deserve you!

    Date: 2012/02/19 14:02:41, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 19 2012,14:15)
    If anything or anyone is stinky shit, it's gildo and the rest of the IDiots and their drumbeat repetitive rhetorical talking points, red herrings, and strawmen, laced with oil of incendiary ad hominems that are lit on fire to cloud and poison the atmosphere and all that jazz, AND their lies and false accusations. Where's the "good faith" in any or all of that? Where's the good faith in the blocking of comments/commenters and in the bannings at UD, and in the support those blockings and bannings get from the IDiot gang at UD? Where's the good faith in the constant malicious attacks on atheists/evolutionary materialists/methodological naturalists/scientists/science supporters/evolutionists/"Darwinists"/theistic evolutionists, and many others, a lot of whom are regularly mentioned by name?

    I am fed up with the lies, false accusations, and other 'bad faith' shit the IDiots constantly spew.

    My visceral reaction is identical to yours, but you're asking the wrong question.  The way I read it, the rules of Lizzie's blog are focused on how people should behave, not on how people do behave.

    Osho made a similar point:
     
    Quote
    Someone has insulted you — anger suddenly erupts, you are feverish. Anger is flowing toward the person who has insulted you. Now you will project this whole anger onto him. He has not done anything. If he has insulted you, what has he done? He has just pricked you, he has helped your anger to arise — but the anger is yours. If he goes to Buddha and insults him, he will not be able to create any anger in him. Or if he goes to Jesus, Jesus will give him the other cheek. Or if he goes to Bodhidharma, he will roar with laughter. So it depends.

    The other is not the source, the source is always within you. The other is hitting the source, but if there is no anger within you it cannot come out. If you hit a buddha, only compassion will come out because only compassion is there. Anger will not come out because anger is not there.

    If you throw a bucket into a dry well, nothing comes out. In a water-filled well, you throw a bucket and water comes out, but the water is from the well. The bucket only helps to bring it out. So one who is insulting you is just throwing a bucket in you, and then the bucket will come out filled with the anger, hate, or fire that was within you.

    You are the source, remember.

    For this technique, remember that you are the source of everything that you go on projecting onto others. And whenever there is a mood against or for, immediately move within and go to the source from where this hate is coming.

    Remain centered there; do not move to the object. Someone has given you a chance to be aware of your own anger — thank him immediately and forget him. Close your eyes, move within, and now look at the source from where this love or anger is coming.

    We should treat others in good faith not because they deserve it but because we should be the type of people who act in good faith.

    And before you ask, yes, I suck at it.

    Date: 2012/02/21 10:44:50, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 21 2012,11:30)
    Joe is occasionally technically correct.  however, he is always wrong with the conclusions he draws from his technically correct information.

    He is also very, very careful, never to say anything that can be used against him.

    He just informed me at Lizzie's blog that CSI is rigorously defined.  Are you suggesting that he won't provide any example calculations to support that claim?

    Date: 2012/02/27 10:37:56, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 27 2012,10:14)
    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 27 2012,09:11)
    That's not a definition of 'biological information' JoeTard.

    Of course it is you fucking moron.

    I'm sure that Barry likes you to talk dirty when you're pitching to him, but we're trying to have a conversation here, dude.

    Date: 2012/02/27 11:20:10, Link
    Author: Patrick
    [Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

    I find I enjoy watching the mindless exchange of insults with Joe "I'll fondle Barry while dreaming of Gordon" Gallien more than the pun cascades.  Takes me back to the sandbox, it does.

    Date: 2012/02/28 13:34:59, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (sparc @ Feb. 28 2012,14:05)
    Has anybody a copy of EN&V's take on the reaction to their Biological Information: New Perspectives conference charade? I found only some remaining traces in Google    
    Quote
    How Do You Silence Science? A National Center for Science ...
    www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/how_do_you_sile056791.html
    17 hours ago – ... Springer, for planning to publish a volume of essays with a design theme: Biological Information: New Perspectives. We haven't seen a copy ...
    Thus, I assume they removed it.

    ETA: I've just learned about the cache operator.
    You will find the cached Klinghofer article here.

    I'd hate to disappoint the wannabe martyrs at the DI, so I dropped a line to Springer explaining the background and history of the authors and material listed in the contents for this book.

    In the comments to Nick Matzke's article over at The Panda's Thumb, Allen MacNeil notes that he can find no mention of this conference being hosted by Cornell.

    Date: 2012/03/01 08:35:24, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 01 2012,09:16)
    Inside Higher Ed has an article on the Springer book flap.

    A comment there compared this to censorship in communist countries. I replied in a comment (under moderation):

     
    Quote

    Hmmm? In the USSR, espousing the "bourgeois biology of the west" could get you house arrest, imprisonment in Siberia, or simply a date in front of the firing squad.

    This isn't a free speech issue. If Intervarsity were the publisher of the proposed volume, nobody would give a rip.

    This is a scamming issue. The pretense that old, tired religious antievolution arguments are actually science is a common fiction ever since 1968's "Epperson v. Arkansas" SCOTUS decision. The legal term of art used for this in 1987's "Edwards v. Aguillard" decision is "sham". It's about people using whatever means of deception they can pull to influence the political sphere to inject their view of biology into science.


    Drat! I thought I had copied the whole thing, but I'm missing about three paragraphs and some edits of what I've got here. Here's hoping they post the whole thing.

    I love this excerpt from the article:
    Quote
    Douglas Theobald, an assistant professor of biochemistry at Brandeis University and a Springer author, and some other colleagues who have been published with the company, are drafting a letter of protest to editors because, Theobald said, they have a vested interest in the quality of books published by Springer. “Our default take on this is that Springer has been duped and that the senior editors are unaware that this is a quack group of anti-evolution creationists,” he said.

    Theobald said that neither he nor his colleagues have read the book, but did have an idea of the content because of the blurb and the names of the editors. He called the book another effort “in a long sordid history here of trying to get pseudoscientific, anti-evolution papers published in journals to raise the respectability of ID with non-scientists” and according to him, the Springer book was the latest in a list of “devious attempts.”

    Date: 2012/03/09 08:48:08, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Happy birthday to Dr. Elizabeth Liddle!

    ETA: Picture of naked man leaping from cake elided on the grounds of good taste and not having permission to use k.e.'s private photos.



    Date: 2012/03/10 17:03:50, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Woodbine @ Mar. 10 2012,17:54)
    Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 10 2012,21:17)
    Less that 25% had more than 12 comments, the maximum number of comments was somewhere between 200 and 300.

    And unless Febble cracks and starts riling up the natives, UD is unlikely to see activity like that again.

    Fingers crossed.

    The number of unique commenters would be an interesting metric as well.  300 comments is well within kairosfocus' logorrheic disorder.

    Date: 2012/03/10 17:05:25, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (noncarborundum @ Mar. 10 2012,17:19)
    But then morbid curiosity got the better of me and I went over to UD

    The next time you feel the urge, have a drink instead.  You can even call me and I'll have a drink with you.  We don't leave men behind in that intellectual swamp.

    Date: 2012/03/14 00:21:52, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (khan @ Mar. 13 2012,16:51)
    Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 13 2012,12:26)
    P.P.S. I'm pretty sure Gordon E. Mullings, AKA Kairosfocus, AKA misogynistic douchenozzle of Montserrat, AKA biggest, most self-loathing closeted homosexual of the Caribbean (come on out, Gordy, nobody cares except you and it's not like there is anyone anywhere who doesn't already know), is just pissed off that I don't have enough penis on my website to give his left hand a little strange, down there in his sister's basement.

    Just for you, Gordy, I'll try and get some male nudes up this week while I'm on Spring Break, just for your wanking pleasure. I'm a good guy like that.

    Fair warning though, I don't really "get" the male form like I do the female form, so they may not be as good.

    I'm sure they will be very nice.

    Date: 2012/03/19 09:43:48, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Woodbine @ Mar. 19 2012,03:32)
    Moar O'Leary lunacy.

    Just say no.

    Date: 2012/04/17 07:33:19, Link
    Author: Patrick


    Never has an idea been coddled more by its supporters than ID.

    Date: 2012/04/17 11:46:04, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (noncarborundum @ April 17 2012,09:09)
    Quote (Patrick @ April 17 2012,07:33)


    Never has an idea been coddled more by its supporters than ID.

    Those of the wall.

    Grrr grumble mumble mumph off my lawn grumble grumph.

    Scientists do not coddle grammar either.

    Date: 2012/04/17 15:34:47, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Robin @ April 17 2012,14:42)
    Quote (Lou FCD @ April 17 2012,12:36)
    Side note:

    Lou is now f-stopping at f/1.2.

    Show off...

    :D

    I just hope he doesn't accidentally leave the lens cap off.  That thing could suck all the light out of a room.

    Date: 2012/04/18 09:55:27, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Speaking of Dembski, he's taking a new position this August.

    h/t to talk.origins



    Date: 2012/04/24 07:01:00, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (DiEb @ April 24 2012,07:37)
    Quote (midwifetoad @ April 23 2012,16:05)
    It seems like the activity follows a pattern created by occasional relaxation of the banhammer.

    At least until now: the banhammer is very relaxed at the moment, but there is no influx of people who want to be annoyed by the regulars....

    I do hope it stays that way.  Who knows what the tard will mature into if it ferments in its own juices for an extended period.

    Date: 2012/04/27 16:30:55, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (fnxtr @ April 27 2012,17:28)
    Quote (JohnW @ April 27 2012,14:15)
    Quote (midwifetoad @ April 27 2012,13:05)
     
    Quote (JohnW @ April 27 2012,14:26)
     
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 27 2012,11:52)
    Favourite reference for his claims is - wait for it! - Casey Luskin.

    We need a new word.  "Fail" doesn't come close.

    Epic Fail?

    "Epic Fail" is a couple of steps into the foothills of these Himalayas of incompetence.

    failaclysm.

    I like that better than failocalypse.

    Date: 2012/04/27 16:38:54, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Turncoat @ April 27 2012,17:27)
    Forgive an ad for what I suspect is the most devastating post I'll ever make to my blog. Other folks have pointed out that "active information" is nothing but a performance measure. But I show that Marks has stated outright his misunderstanding of the NFL theorems, and explain how his misrepresentation of performance as information follows. All of you will understand the most important parts of the post, and many of you will understand all of it.

    Sorry that I haven't been coming around to play. Keep giving 'em hell.

    Very nice.  I must take issue with one thing in particular that Marks said:
    Quote
    We have a few responses on blogs, which are unpleasant, and typically personal attacks, so those are to be ignored. We're waiting for, actually, something substantive in response.

    I personally don't have a problem with providing a substantive response that includes unpleasant personal attacks.  The intelligent design creationists get the respect they've earned.

    Date: 2012/05/02 19:14:10, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (midwifetoad @ May 01 2012,09:10)
    They are well insulated.

    If only they were isolated.

    Nick Matzke, Neil Rickert, and one or two others keep injecting just enough reality to prevent the collapse that will forever put the ID denizens beyond the tard event horizon.

    Date: 2012/05/08 12:20:20, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Off topic, but I'm really wondering why people on the Skeptical Zone keep leaving Joe links to pictures of bunnies.  Is there an Internet meme I missed during its five minutes of glory or are rabbits to Joe what clowns are to DaveScot?

    Date: 2012/05/08 15:14:14, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ May 08 2012,14:12)
    Quote (Patrick @ May 08 2012,12:20)
    Off topic, but I'm really wondering why people on the Skeptical Zone keep leaving Joe links to pictures of bunnies.  Is there an Internet meme I missed during its five minutes of glory or are rabbits to Joe what clowns are to DaveScot?

    An internet meme proudly created by our very own Amadan:

    http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y205448


    And I better not be ninja'ed by him!

    Edited for spellography

    Ah, I thought it had the aura of AtBC about it, thanks.

    I wonder if Elizabeth considers bunnies to be in good faith.

    Date: 2012/05/14 16:13:02, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (REC @ May 14 2012,15:20)
    SCheesman sticks his neck out on Barry's 9000th post celebration:

    Quote
    I wish I could celebrate, but I fear 9000 is a reflection of a vast inflation in the number rate of postings in the last year or two, with a corresponding decline in comments.

    I owe a good deal of what I know today about ID from UD, both from a scientific and theological perspective, and used to enjoy the long threads and back-and-forth between proponents and opponents.

    But now, many, if not most posts get nary a comment, and the ones engendering some debate often are lost in the crowd. Since the recent purge of participants who failed to pass what amounted to a purity test, it’s been pretty quiet here. The most lively recent discussion featured a debate between OEC’s and YEC’s. Now I enjoy that sort of thing (like on Sal Cordova’s old “Young Cosmos” blog), but it’s hardly what UD used to be known for.

    Maybe the new format gets more visitors than it used to, but I’d be interested in seeing the stats, including comments per post, posts per month, unique visitors etc. over the last few years.

    I miss the old days. I expect a lot of us do.


    Please, Barry, celebrate this milestone with a Loudspeaker/ Bannination.

    Does anyone have SCheesman's contact details?  I'm sure he could find some of the "back-and-forth" he's looking for here.  He's probably just waiting for an invitation.

    Date: 2012/05/22 08:36:05, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 22 2012,08:47)
    Joe so ronery:

    Perhaps he'll post a link to some pornography on UD like he did on Lizzie's blog.  That would be an entertaining Friday meltdown.

    Date: 2012/05/23 09:13:06, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Okay, which one of you is Jerad?  Someone is polluting the tard pool with reality.  Admittedly it's directed at Joe, so there's no danger of it sticking, but it's the principle of the thing.

    Date: 2012/05/24 12:23:30, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ May 24 2012,12:33)
    Quote (afarensis @ May 24 2012,10:23)
     
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ May 24 2012,06:21)
    Oh noes - the Tree of Life is crashing down - down - down!      
    Quote
    If turtles are closer to birds than to lizards and snakes, genetically, then …

    Doesn’t this raise some questions about conventional accounts of evolution? Or do we still pretend we didn’t notice?


    Remember, Denyse said it first.

    So, currently evolutionists think that turtles are either more closely related to snakes and lizards (lepidosaurs) or more closely related to crocodiles and birds (archosaurs). The first is supported by morphological studies and microRNA studies, the second by morphological studies, mtDNA and nucDNA studies. A new genetic study comes out that supports the archosaur hypothesis and this overturns the "conventional" account how?

    And even if the conventional account were overturned, so effing what? When genetics showed that whales are not descended from mesonychids but from artiodactyls it was just a super cool discovery. Common descent was not shattered to bits - but Denyse seems to conclude it with the new turtle cladogram.

    Science is always changing, but religion doesn't*, therefore religion wins!

    * On the timescales of a human life, usually.

    Date: 2012/05/29 14:30:11, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Febble @ May 29 2012,12:53)
    I made a transcript here:

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....t....t-14178

    I'm not sure why.  I guess I was fascinated.  I think it has its own internal logic actually.  It just isn't premised on anything that is actually true.

    I'm impressed that you were able to create that -- I couldn't even read the whole thing.  Before I started skimming, though, this jumped out at me:
    Quote
    Finally I said I want to go somewhere where people know what they believe from one decade to the next.

    That pretty much summarizes the IDCist opposition to science.

    Date: 2012/06/04 07:34:20, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (JLT @ June 04 2012,02:50)
    Quote (Richardthughes @ June 01 2012,21:06)
       
    Quote (JLT @ June 01 2012,06:53)
    I'm sure none of you would want to miss this:
           
    Quote
    Luskin and Arrington Discuss ID

    Date:  Monday, June 4

    Time:  4:00 to 6:00 Mountain

    Go here http://www.947krks.com/....rks....rks.com

    Then click on “Listen Live”

    Liveblog here, maybe?

    I'm wondering, is this the show Luskin and Barry will appear at to discuss the totally not religious ID?



    Get answers to your Bible questions, LOL.
    I'm feeling slightly masochistic today, maybe I'll listen in.

    Who will be calling in as "Gordo from Montserrat"?

    Date: 2012/06/08 08:21:09, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (REC @ June 07 2012,15:42)
    UD is barely clearing a dozen comments a day.

    Unfortunately, a few of these are from the reality-based community.

    Can we try to extract them?

    We recovering tardicts definitely need to hold an intervention for Jared.

    Date: 2012/06/11 12:43:09, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 11 2012,13:11)
    Sal:
    Quote
    Can you confine limit, confine, and measure macro evolution? No. By that standard, even assuming naturalism, evolutionism is hard pressed to be called science. That’s why in science’s pecking order, evolutionism lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to the pseudoscience than to physics.


    Ugh.

    Nice tu quoque example.  I note that he didn't actually answer the question posed.

    Date: 2012/06/12 12:49:06, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 12 2012,12:54)
    Quote (NormOlsen @ June 12 2012,11:20)
    Steve Matheson resigns over allegations of sexual involvement with a student.  Not surprisingly,
    Sal kicks off the Schadenfreude-fest at UD.

       
    Quote
    I hope for Steve’s sake, the allegations are false and that he’ll return to debating the ID and UD community. He has a fine intellect, and he was the source of many lively scientific exchanges.


    Such sincerity!  It's touching really.

    Slimy Sal must have an archive full of records about the persons who have pwned him in online discussions, bearing a grudge for years. As soon as he imagines he has found a weakness he pounces.

    That reminded me to check and, sure enough, he still hasn't answered Jerad's question about how to test for a designer who operates without any constraints.  (No link to UD, on purpose.)

    Date: 2012/06/14 21:01:02, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (REC @ June 14 2012,12:14)
    Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 14 2012,06:44)
    For those who were wondering about the health of Uncommon Descent...



    The Trollocaust  was in mid-February, right on the 02/12 marker, more or less.

    As we can see, the two months, post-bannings, resulted in far more unique visitors (the only traffic stat I can find), on average, than the several months prior to the banning.

    So, no, the absence of trolls hasn't hurt U.D.'s traffic. If anything, it may have improved it. While Elizabeth livened the place up a little bit, in my opinion, the rest of you clearly brought it down with your stupidity and horrible arguments.

    U.D. is better off without you smelly turds stinking the place up. Thank God Barry flushed you down the toilet.  :p

    Jammer deleted the bold warning in the chart that tells you the sample size for uncommondescent.com is so small that this is, at best, a rough estimate.

    Not to mention UD collects 500-750 views A DAY from the stolen "scoville scale" image that now appears as the second image in google image searches for "scoville scale," the first image for "scoville scale dangerous" and the third for "pepper dangerous." Try it.

    By these metrics, (500 views per day for hot peppers, 10,000 unique views per month) virtually ALL of UD's unique traffic could be coming from people looking for hot sauce! The rest is the same 100 idiots clicking repeatedly. We know who they are.

    If UD had a shred of dignity, it would 404 the stolen image thread. Lets see how the unique visits hold up then, Jammer.

    Why don't you post over there, suggesting this? It looks a bit silly to have one of the daily popular come from misdirected traffic, doesn't it?

    And as the uber-moral orthodox Christian who cannot steal or lie, Barry should feel compelled to do the right thing.

    Unique comments, productive threads, or lack of Barry's idiotic "Christians cannot lie" posts might be better considerations.

    Do you know where the original came from?  A DMCA takedown notice would be a great test to see how much this impacts UD's stats.

    Date: 2012/06/16 17:25:11, Link
    Author: Patrick
    snelldl "proves" proteins can't form spontaneously, says absolutely nothing about evolutionary theory, and still manages to hook R0bb.

    Can we get an extraction team to him in time?

    Date: 2012/06/21 12:16:30, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,12:56)
    We require a much higher standard of evidence than do you religious folk.

    I love how religious fundamentalists use the term "religious" as an insult.  It's like insulting a sibling with a "your mom" joke.

    Date: 2012/06/21 12:28:36, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,13:24)
    [quote=Wesley R. Elsberry,June 20 2012,03:47][/quote]
    Motive mongering is a two-way street. Any of you can point out the religious convictions of I.D. proponents, and I can return the favor by pointing out the atheism of the most outspoken of Darwin defenders.

    In the end, it's all a big waste of time. All that matters is the evidence, and the evidence, both from the origin of life and the revealed directiveness of biology via internal technology points OVERWHELMINGLY towards design. It is every bit as powerful as the evidence for the gravitational force, perhaps even stronger.  Relying on disingenuous games, like the Onion Test, does not change one iota of any of this, but instead reveals just how far Darwin's once-proud theory has fallen. It's the flat Earth of the 21st century.

    Let's be completely honest here, although I know that's quite a challenge for most of you. Darwinism has devolved from scientific theory, to failed scientific hypothesis, to stealth atheist religion. We know of the strong correlation between those proselytizing for Darwinism and atheism. Eugenics Scott, Barbara Forrest, Jerry Coyne, P.Z. Myers, Richard Dawkins, etc. -- all well-known Liars for Darwin; all militant atheists.

    You people defend Darwinian evolution, not for scientific reasons, but because it's your religion. You need it to be true; your intellectual fulfillment demands it. You'll lie to yourselves, and to others, to maintain the illusion that it is. You absolutely abhor anyone who challenges that propped-up illusion, which is why we see so much vulgar filth being spewed at I.D. proponents.

    Your true motivations, emotional, rather than rational, are revealed in every four-letter word you hurl.

    You guys have lost. Deep down inside you know it, which further spurs on your insecure fits of vulgarity.

    My advice? Quit deluded yourselves and join those of us in the 21st century, a period in which the beauty and sophistication of design has revealed itself in all its glory. It's really not all that bad. In fact, viewing biology as the artwork of an ingenious artist (engineer) is really quite intellectually stimulating.

    I call Poe.  Mostly because I'd prefer to think that people this willfully and aggressively ignorant and dishonest don't actually exist.

    Date: 2012/06/22 09:28:57, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 22 2012,06:29)
    Quote (REC @ June 21 2012,14:32)
    From the ID isn't creationist files:

     
    Quote
    Nick Matzke:

    Do you have proof that Adam and Eve weren’t specially created? If you do, please offer it.


    And from the snippets Gauger has posted, it looks like all she has some minor criticism of the methodologies used. Muddy the waters a bit. If she actually had shocking proof of Adam and Eve, why isn't she doing interviews on Fox? What is this buy my book/read the chapter B.S.?

    The way Denyse is treating all realists' comments, I'm afraid that in future everyone will have to prove that they have read Gauger's fifth chapter before they are allowed to have an opinion on Adam and Eve. Best send a JPEG of the invoice!

    Which one of the trained biologists here is going to risk the brain damage to fisk this dreck?

    I'll offer a few beers as a reward, at any New York City area bar of your choice.

    Date: 2012/06/22 14:11:14, Link
    Author: Patrick
    lastyearon goes for a Friday bannination.

    Quote
    Don’t feel too bad, Jerad. I think you are making a valiant effort to clarify things, to understand where you and UPB differ, to understand what exactly Intelligent Design means. But, you know what they say… "Never ask for clarification from a man whose soul depends on not being clear."


    ETA: Quotation, to reduce extra hits at UD.



    Date: 2012/06/23 10:32:18, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Joe pulls out CSI in response to a question from Jerad.  Since we know that no intelligent design creationist would reply to a question with anything less than full honesty, I must conclude that they have rigorously defined CSI and shown examples of how to calculate it in the past year or so (since they certainly were unable to do so the last time they were asked).  I look forward to seeing those results.

    Date: 2012/06/23 19:52:24, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Badger3k @ June 23 2012,19:25)
    Really, with lines like that, surely Jammer has to be a Poe.

    I was pretty sure before, but that definitely cinches it.  Not even the YECs at UD are reality challenged enough to consider kairosfocus any more intelligent than a Markov text generator.

    Date: 2012/06/24 10:47:37, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Bob O'H @ June 24 2012,07:22)
    In fairness to Gauger, that was a nice response - pithy and signalling a refusal to deal with trolling.

    I agree.  Since she's participating at UD, I would find it interesting if some sock would continue the questions about her presentation at the Wistar Retrospective Symposium:

    Quote
    Gauger reported on her work at the Wistar Retrospective Symposium held from June 3 through June 7, 2007 in Boston, Massachusetts. As reported by Daniel Brooks, "...she discussed “leaky growth,” in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner said, “So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?” at which point the moderator halted questioning."

    Date: 2012/06/24 16:25:44, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Quack @ June 24 2012,16:58)
    What more is there to say?

    Nothing.  Fortunately, UD is up to the task of saying it verbosely.

    Date: 2012/06/24 20:26:16, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Ptaylor @ June 24 2012,20:44)
    Quote (REC @ June 25 2012,10:40)
    O'Leary refines her hypocrisy:

    And Gregory is prepared for anything remotely critical Nick Matzke might have to say:
     
    Quote
    ...Whether or not his presuppositions, ideology, background beliefs allow him to assess the book ‘neutrally’ is a question seemingly worth asking outside of the ‘objectivistic’ realm of natural sciences. Iow, what Nick ‘knows’ (or claims to know) in biology or genetics actually says little about how his worldview influences his answers on questions of ‘human origins.

    UD link.

    And yet, without reading the book themselves, the usual UDiots know that Gauger is right.

    Pointing and laughing has long now been the only appropriate response to these nitwits.  It's too bad they're not introspective enough to understand why.

    Date: 2012/06/25 14:48:27, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Out of curiosity, does anyone know what kairosfocus is talking about when he references a "constitutional crisis"?  I've looked at the Montserrat news recently and didn't see any kind of crisis nor any mention of anyone with the initials GEM creating one.

    Unfortunately, he's no worse than some politicians in the deep south of the US, so I'm willing to believe it's possible that he might be a semi-prominent member of the street sweepers union on a sufficiently small island.

    Date: 2012/06/25 20:18:04, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (NormOlsen @ June 25 2012,16:29)
    Quote (olegt @ June 25 2012,15:19)
     
    Quote (Patrick @ June 25 2012,14:48)
    Out of curiosity, does anyone know what kairosfocus is talking about when he references a "constitutional crisis"?  I've looked at the Montserrat news recently and didn't see any kind of crisis nor any mention of anyone with the initials GEM creating one.

    Unfortunately, he's no worse than some politicians in the deep south of the US, so I'm willing to believe it's possible that he might be a semi-prominent member of the street sweepers union on a sufficiently small island.

    Don't know about the latest crisis, but here is one from 2010. It concerns teh gays.

    I thought it was this:
    Premier Meade seeks to delist Montserrat as a Colony at the UN

    So kairosfocus is too busy to rant on UD because he is ranting on some obscure Montserrat discussion forum that isn't even indexed by Google, presenting views that are never even seen by anyone in the government?

    I find that quite believable, actually.

    Date: 2012/06/26 07:51:06, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 26 2012,06:20)
    Paulmc reviews "Science and human origins" chapter by chapter

    http://apomorph.blogspot.co.nz/....t.c....t.co.nz

    well worth a look. Short version: They found what they looked for, and only that.

    And he's a barefoot runner, according to the immediately following blog post!  I do enjoy confirming my prejudice that sufficiently intelligent people will think like me.

    Date: 2012/06/26 09:41:23, Link
    Author: Patrick
    For those of you, like me, who missed the "Modern Science and Ancient Faith" conference, John Farrell briefly covers it for Forbes:

    Quote
    Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller always gives a great talk.
    . . .
    included a recap of his role in the Dover Trial and his critique of intelligent design creationism.

    He was followed by William Dembski, a leading proponent of intelligent design, with "An Information Theoretic Proof of God’s Existence."
    . . .
    Then he moved on to his signature points using information theory to argue that Natural Selection is not sufficient to explain novelty in biological systems.

    This was the first time I’d ever seen Dembski in person, and unlike Miller he does not use slides. He probably should, because he has a good sense of humor, but his delivery was too often undercut by his dependence on reading from his paper and constant digressions where he almost sounded like he was talking to himself rather than addressing the audience, and his voice would become almost inaudible.

    Needless to say, he did not share Miller’s view of the Dover trial. (That’s a whole separate post.) Still, it’s odd to hear a trained philosopher say, "I’m fine with common ancestry, but I don’t buy it."

    (Emphasis mine, I like seeing that phrase getting more traction.)

    Dembski in the same conference as Miller.  That's certainly good for one of their resumes.

    Date: 2012/06/26 18:19:02, Link
    Author: Patrick
    I notice on Montserrat's Wikipedia page that no one with the initials GEM is listed in the section "Famous Montserratians."  An oversight, surely.

    The population of the island is less than six thousand, spread over a number of towns and villages.  I wonder how many know kairosfocus by name?

    Date: 2012/06/27 08:10:36, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (BillB @ June 27 2012,04:51)
    Quote (Patrick @ June 27 2012,00:19)
    I notice on Montserrat's Wikipedia page that no one with the initials GEM is listed in the section "Famous Montserratians."  An oversight, surely.

    The population of the island is less than six thousand, spread over a number of towns and villages.  I wonder how many know kairosfocus by name?

    Given his fearful reaction to people using his real name I would guess that those who know of him refer to him as either 'you know who' or 'he who shall not be named'

    Or maybe just occasionally 'The dark lord'

    I suspect he's known as "that poor man" by people who then put their arms protectively around their children and cross the street to avoid him.

    Date: 2012/06/27 18:38:09, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Doc Bill @ June 27 2012,16:30)
    Over at Evo Snooze, old Dembski dropped that he's moving his family to Iowa.

    Hmmm, I thought he had a new job at Bubba's Bible Kollege, Hair Care and Tire Emporium in North Carolina.

    Change o' plans?

    You neglected to mention just how badly he must have gotten spanked by Miller in that conference.

    "I didn't quit from Dover, I was fired!"

    Could it be that he sees his increasing irrelevance as ID continues to fade?

    Date: 2012/06/28 11:44:25, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Richardthughes @ June 28 2012,09:49)
    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 28 2012,08:07)
    I missed Dembski's claim that he was about to be deposed "by the ACLU" in Waco. Dembski is confused. Vic Walczak (ACLU-PA) was not going to depose Dembski; Stephen Harvey of Pepper Hamilton was going to depose him. TMLC knew all this stuff, why doesn't Dembski?

    And if Dembski really looks forward to deposition, just let me know, and I'll see about getting a deposition funded. I'm sure Stephen, Jeff, and I would be up for it. Just make sure to have the box of correspondence from Cambridge University Press in hand for it, OK?

    And I'll pay $100 for front row seating.

    I'll pay for a front row seat and contribute to a scholarship fund to ensure that kairosfocus, JoeG, and Upright BiPed can attend.

    Date: 2012/06/29 16:30:11, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (JohnW @ June 29 2012,17:04)
    How crazy do things have to get before Denyse O'Leary - Denyse O'fuckin'Leary - starts sounding like the voice of reason?  This crazy:
     
    Quote
    5 News June 29, 2012 at 7:50 am
    Some of us were thinking of the heavy wooden paddles, tragic mishap. Nonsense is one thing, abuse another.

    6 tragic mishap June 29, 2012 at 9:11 am
    Spanking is not abuse.

    Spanking with a heavy wooden paddle is not abuse?

    I would like to spend some quality time not abusing tragic mishap.

    Date: 2012/06/30 18:43:22, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (paulmc @ June 30 2012,19:09)
    It's a shame that none of the UD folk have been willing to discuss the review.

    Ann Gauger had been posting in the last thread they did on the book, but has vanished along with everyone else* when I made criticisms from having read the chapter.

    *Everyone except Joe, I should say. And Joe just told me there isn't evidence that purifying selection happens or that mutations fix. So that conversation's going real well.

    I particularly like this solid refutation of your argument:
    Quote
    Except we do not know if dogs evolved from wolves. We just assume that is what happened. No one has taken wolves and via artificial selection made a dog.

    And even if you're right, you're wrong:
    Quote
    And also for all their phenotypic plasticity the dogs are still dogs.

    ID is so not creationism -- it just uses exactly the same arguments.

    Date: 2012/07/01 14:08:20, Link
    Author: Patrick
    I just clicked on an Upright BiPed comment, in the hopes that he would be answering Lizzie's questions about his "semiotic argument" but instead found this, in response to kairosfocus:
    Quote
    Quote
    We are entitled to infer on the sign-signified relationship.

    Of course we are. But this only influences those interested in the effective combination of material observation and universal experience. Interestingly, that doesn’t include the vast majority of materialists.

    They seem to be developing their own language over there, intended more for mutual virtual grooming than for actual communication of concepts.

    Date: 2012/07/02 08:52:43, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (The whole truth @ July 01 2012,05:27)
    So, all I can figure is that they're dealing with a critical crisis or that they're searching the vast archives of ID scientific discoveries to find what surely must be mountains of valid, well established evidence against the points in your review. joe g, being the brave and selfless person he is, must have volunteered to engage you with his incomparable wit and charm during what I'm sure will only be a slight delay in the rest of the UD folk responding to your review with their well thought out, evidence based, strictly scientific, non-religious arguments of course. The last thing UD folk would do is run from a challenge, an open and honest discussion, a real conversation, a meeting of minds, and a fair fight, right?  ;)

    Even Joe is just phoning it in:
    Quote
    And how do you know that Schulz et al., are not just speculating given the evolutionary scenario? Ya see they cannot provide a history because they were not around so they can only speculate given a certain scenario.

    I'd hoped that Gauger at least would have enough integrity to respond.

    Date: 2012/07/02 13:04:24, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Amadan @ July 02 2012,13:55)
    Ummmm, would it be tactless to mention that this is the fourth mammoth thread concerned entirely with observing and commenting on their site?

    Indeed.  If only Google Sidewiki had taken off, AtBC would be unnecessary.  ;-)

    Date: 2012/07/04 10:10:49, Link
    Author: Patrick
    kairosfocus declares his independence from reality on July 4th.

    Seriously, can anyone tell what he's on about?

    Date: 2012/07/04 11:42:09, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 04 2012,11:59)
    Quote (The whole truth @ July 04 2012,10:48)
     
    Quote (Patrick @ July 04 2012,08:10)
    kairosfocus [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/atheism/for-record-new-atheist-objectors-to-design-thought-at-anti-evo-etc-reach-new-lows-hit-rock





    -bottom/]declares his independence from reality[/URL] on July 4th.

    Seriously, can anyone tell what he's on about?

    It figures that the first time I clicked on a link to UD in several months all I got is 'page not found'.

    Is the link wrong or did they remove gordo's post?

    The board SW breaks long links.

    Try this one

    Gordo's classic meltdown

    Thanks.  I'll use bit.ly religiously ID-ly in the future.

    Date: 2012/07/04 17:27:07, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (The whole truth @ July 04 2012,14:10)
    He portrays himself as the ultimate knight in shining armor (bydand!) when in reality he's just a rusty, moldy, cowardly, lying piece of trash.

    Perhaps he should throw himself in the volcano as a pure sacrifice to save Montserrat!

    Or, perhaps I've been celebrating the 4th quite enough already.

    Date: 2012/07/04 18:11:27, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (NormOlsen @ July 04 2012,18:52)
    Sal Cordova, the voice of reason?
    Who'da thunk?
    (UD link)

    The reason being "They beat us like a borrowed drum on this.  Please make it stop!"



    Date: 2012/07/04 19:58:04, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Dr.GH @ July 04 2012,19:35)
    Oh, I would never have ever even imagined calling anyone a "morphodyke."

    That is fucking creativity. One can only dream of such verbal creativity.

    I have a soft spot [1] for Denyse since she was very pleasant to me in my interactions with her as Mathgrrl.

    Denyse, darlin', please reconsider the prolific posting of odd commentary associated with science news.  I realize that journalists are expected to write about topics with which they aren't familiar, but you're not doing the ID movement any favors.

    As far as the insult you reference goes, I suspect that represents the lifetime peak of Dave Springer's creativity.

    [1] Insert "that's what she said", "not according to Louis' mom", or other appropriate witty repartee here.



    Date: 2012/07/05 11:29:31, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 05 2012,12:20)
    Quote (CeilingCat @ July 05 2012,10:52)
    All we need now is for Barry to elope with Denyse and log into UD from the bridal suite and ban everybody involved for mopery with intent to gawk.

    Vile sexual slur to decent grandmother noted and reported to KF.

    Does kairosfocus have a special email address for reporting vile sexual slurs?  Kind of like an internet bat signal?  I would love to have it since I see those EVERYWHERE.

    Date: 2012/07/05 13:24:05, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 05 2012,14:20)
    Quote
    Sal felt so proud of his “coming out” that he had to announce it on an evo blog.

    ...says Joe.

    Does anyone know what blog he is talking about?

    Lizzie's.

    Date: 2012/07/05 14:26:24, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 05 2012,14:47)
    Quote (Patrick @ July 05 2012,13:24)
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 05 2012,14:20)
     
    Quote
    Sal felt so proud of his “coming out” that he had to announce it on an evo blog.

    ...says Joe.

    Does anyone know what blog he is talking about?

    Lizzie's.

    Thanks.
    Ge's still a nasty piece of work - did you read how he gloated over groovamus who made a math mistake?

    Where's the fun in being right if you don't get to do a virtual victory dance?  ;-)

    Sal did provide a link to a list of links I collated at Lizzie's blog.  I don't believe anyone at UD has read them or is likely to visit The Skeptical Zone, but he did make the effort.

    Those links reference some great material by Mike Elzinga and olegt and the thread participants include Joe Felsenstein, petrushka, Neil Rickert, and some other well known AtBCers -- well worth reading.

    Date: 2012/07/06 09:50:17, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (olegt @ July 05 2012,21:01)
    Can you guess who wrote [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicist-rob-sheldon-offers-some-thoughts-on-sal-cordova-vs-granville-sewell-on-2nd-law-t

    hermo/#comment-427306]this[/URL]?
    Quote
    I’m a very simple person, au fond. I play Chopin on the piano, write artificially intelligent computer programs as a hobby, and earn my living as a software engineer in aerospace R&D.

    That was too easy.  One nice thing about that post, though, is that he makes clear the most basic argument for intelligent design creationism -- personal incredulity:
    Quote
    Forget thermodynamics, entropy, and all the rest. Anyone with any reasonable intelligence and familiarity with engineered systems should be able to recognize that complex information-processing machinery of the kind found in living systems cannot possibly be engineered by Darwinian mechanisms.

    Those who propose that Darwinian mechanisms account for this technology are clearly out of contact with reality, and live in some kind of bizarre La-La Land that has nothing to do with reason or evidence.

    Attempting to reason with such people is an exercise in futility, because they are completely irrational.

    He even ends with a little flounce!

    Date: 2012/07/07 09:39:18, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (paulmc @ July 06 2012,21:42)
    Ann Gauger has now posted an insubstantial response to "some critics" of her book on Biologic's website, who she accuses of misrepresenting her work. These critics apparently claimed Gauger had said "humans arose four million years ago."

    O'Leary has picked up on this and turned it into a slurs-against-Gauger post: If the girl is making some sense, they have to make up something she didn’t say, so they don’t have to address what she did say. Apparently, a five-part review doesn't count as addressing what Gauger said.

    I have responded.

    I hope Gauger responds to what you actually wrote, but I'm not holding my breath.

    I did see this from someone posting under the nym JGuy:
    Quote
    BTW: I’m a young earth creationist. Though, that might have been evident.

    Measured time on earth:
    1. 6 literal Creation days.
    2. ~6000years ago.
    3. Noah + 7 family members survive a global flood.
    4. Global flood was about ~4500yo.
    5. Subsequent tower of Babel dispersion of man by confusion of languages from somewhere in the Middle East.

    I do so appreciate it when people tattoo "I am aggressively and willfully ignorant of all science." on their foreheads.  It saves a lot of time.

    Date: 2012/07/08 09:16:19, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (paulmc @ July 07 2012,18:39)
    Another layer of WTF - Gauger just admitted she wrote her Biologic piece accusing me of misunderstanding without having read the review.

    This is the same Gauger who admonished others for exactly the same thing regarding her book previously.

    And nullasalus and kuartus immediately leap to her defense.  These guys are as bad as the regulars at PZ Myers' blog (yeah, I said that).

    You also got an insightful response from Joe, I see.  Someone needs to send him back to the kids' table while the grownups are talking.



    Date: 2012/07/09 09:40:02, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (afarensis @ July 08 2012,22:11)
    Luskin, in the past, has relied on Wood and Collard's moving Homo habilis to the australopithecines to create a large gap between the australopithecines and Homo. What he doesn't understand, or conveniently ignores, is that moving H. habilis to the australopithicine genus does not eliminate the derived traits the species share with Homo. the change is terminological and doesn't affect the interpretation of the underlying anatomy and such a move really wouldn't create the gap Luskin needs.

    This reflects (yet another) commonality between the arguments of ID proponents and those of their creationist predecessors.  They seem to focus on the words and the structure of the argument and ignore the real world referents.  This leads to what sometimes looks like deliberate equivocation, but is sometimes, I think, more symptomatic of cargo cult logic.

    I speculate that this comes from being exposed to exegesis by the man in the pulpit from an early age.  Logic isn't seen as a tool to identify error but as a means of confirming what is already known to be true.

    My apologies for this somewhat inarticulate post -- I'm still thinking this through.  I'm sure I'm not the first.

    Date: 2012/07/09 10:40:49, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 09 2012,11:14)
    Remember those SciFi movies in which aliens can adapt their morphology to the species they are interacting with? Well, Slimy Sal must be one of them. Over at TSZ he makes an effort to rationally and humbly discuss physics with the experts. Meanwhile, over at UD:    
    Quote
    The proper way to frame the argument is not whether evolution is compatible or incompatible with laws, rather wether life’s emergence is consistent with the supposed mechanisms of origin of life and evolution.

    Why is this distinction important? Because living systems transcends physical laws just like software transcends physical law and hardware by definition.

    If we suppose evolutionary mechanisms are based on physical law, but then demonstrate that life’s essential features are independent of physical law,
    then your question becomes moot.


    Edited to add link

    Software transcends physical law?

    I am a GOD!



    ETA: A blue one.



    Date: 2012/07/09 17:07:17, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Richardthughes @ July 09 2012,17:07)
    ATHIEST WAR HERO NFL PLAYING AMERICA LOVING PATRIOT?

    I had to tilt my laptop sideways to drain off the extra testosterone it filled with just from loading that image.



    Date: 2012/07/10 08:25:49, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 09 2012,22:27)
    Quote (NormOlsen @ July 09 2012,15:07)
    Oh noes! Crazy atheist lady has blue hair!
    Run away!!!

    Sal's right - the guy who looks like a Ken doll clearly makes a more compelling case for his claims.  I guess.  Whatever they are.  Anyways, his hair is way neater and not blue.

    I just found it interesting that Sal's choice of beauty contest entrant is male.

    Date: 2012/07/11 14:26:06, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (midwifetoad @ July 11 2012,11:09)
    I predict KF wil escalate his word count.

    Is that possible?

    I suppose since no one reads his screeds anyway that he could copy and paste text from random Web pages.  That would lack the spittle-flecked passion and incoherence of his genuine work, though.

    Date: 2012/07/12 13:04:21, Link
    Author: Patrick
    noam_ghish looks for answers on UD:
    Quote
    Who’s the ignoramus? Barry or the German Researcher?

    That's a rhetorical question, right?

    Date: 2012/07/13 12:22:30, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Robin @ July 13 2012,13:07)
    Methinks someone might have to explain Joe to Diogenes. It seems the latter thinks the former's perspective is in line with the rest of the IDists.

    Yo Diogenes...if you read this, you might want to note that it's not that Joe isn't one the same wavelength with the rest of the DI denizens, he's not sane.

    In all seriousness, I am still not 100% convinced that Joe is not a sophisticated bot operated by someone with a twisted sense of humor.  He responds to nearly all comments with some variant of "Your position doesn't explain anything.", aside from those on his blog where he mixes things up with schoolyard style vulgarity.

    It is difficult to distinguish his output from that of a Markov text generator.

    Date: 2012/07/14 12:03:01, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (socle @ July 14 2012,11:45)
    Quote (The whole truth @ July 13 2012,20:30)
    "And FYI, proud and disrespectful mockers on UD, that T in my name that you and your ilk so lightly play scornful games with is there because the self same blood that stood on that hill courses in my veins.

    A name that is a war cry."



    These aren't covered in enough spittle to have been used by kairosfocus.



    Date: 2012/07/20 12:44:31, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Badger3k @ July 20 2012,12:15)
    Quote (Richardthughes @ July 20 2012,10:47)
    Carl Zimmer on UD, increasing the Butthurt:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....origins

    I felt like yelling "It's a trap!" in response to Carl's request to "name one".

    lpadron is valiantly trying to restructure reality in that thread:
    Quote
    But if it’s that important a question to Mr. Zimmer then perhaps he should ask the authors about it in the forum Klinghoffer offered.

    Declining that offer makes Mr. Zimmer look as though he’s as unable to defend his point against Gauger and Axe as Klinghoffer is unable to defend his from Mr. Zimmer.

    It's too much to expect a response to a simple question in a relatively open forum like Facebook, but failure to agree to participate in a debate on a closed forum means Zimmer is in the wrong.

    Those are some fancy dance steps.

    Date: 2012/07/22 17:17:48, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Bartax speaks truth to power impotence:
    Quote
    Quote
    This is a case of ill-informed, assertive hostility and outright slander in action.

    No it isn’t you windbag.

    Since kairosfocus is, in actual fact, a windbag, surely Bartax can't be banned for pointing it out?

    Date: 2012/07/24 09:16:51, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Carl Zimmer has utterly destroyed Casey Luskin's claims about the fusion of human chromosome 2 in the latest DI tome "Science and Human Origins".  I'm curious to see how UD will spin his clear evidence of cherry picking, quote mining, and general ignorance.

    Date: 2012/07/24 19:33:58, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Paul McBride schools kairosfocus:
    Quote
    Game over? KF, it’s amusing and all that you think you get to claim that I have made “evasive, dismissive and no-broughtupcy denigratory remarks”, but I actually tried to link you to a starting point for a discussion about the population genetics and you have turned it down summarily, while taking something of a dig at my upbringing.

    The air is heavy with irony for it is you and no I who have responded with evasive and dismissive remarks – “switcharoo” – you even claimed that I did a noview on the book even though I have written a six-part, extensive, blow by blow critique.

    Now you are bring up “body-plan”? We have the same body plan as the other primates, so you are apparently referring to deeper evolution.

    So what is it? Population genetics, chromosomal fusions, a specific aspect of human evolution, or patterns of deeper, body-plan evolution? I can’t discuss all of them in a post, KF, that sounds like a couple of textbooks.

    I would pay to see Paul use Mr. Leathers on kairosfocus.

    Date: 2012/07/25 18:37:54, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Paul McBride earns a free drink from me, should he make it to the US:
    Quote
    Once again, KF, this is demonstrably untrue. One particular point? My review addresses the major points of every chapter in the book. It is not my fault that you haven’t read the review, but there is no point in your continued dishonesty about it. As you so often like to tell others, you have been repeatedly corrected on this.

    That's it, kairosfocus (yes, we know you read here).  You've been repeatedly corrected.  Anything you say now is just more oil of ad hominem on an already throughly soaked strawman.  By your own rules, you lose.

    Date: 2012/07/27 16:41:26, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (keiths @ July 27 2012,17:22)
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 26 2012,23:55)
    Every now and then, I check Springer's homepage...

    Just for a second, my brain thought you meant Dave Springer's homepage. What a tard mine that would be.

    Has anyone sighted him lately?

    Date: 2012/07/29 12:25:13, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (midwifetoad @ July 29 2012,13:14)
    As UD will find out.

    A quick glance over there shows that UD is finding it out.  Joe is having a lovely Sunday meltdown, with the occasional prod from Bartax.

    Date: 2012/07/29 16:23:27, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (CeilingCat @ July 29 2012,15:54)
    Quote (Patrick @ July 29 2012,12:25)
     
    Quote (midwifetoad @ July 29 2012,13:14)
    As UD will find out.

    A quick glance over there shows that UD is finding it out.  Joe is having a lovely Sunday meltdown, with the occasional prod from Bartax.

    You mean Fartax?

    Am I missing humor or a cultural reference?

    Date: 2012/07/29 16:53:27, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Bob O'H @ July 29 2012,17:27)
    Quote (Patrick @ July 29 2012,16:23)
    Quote (CeilingCat @ July 29 2012,15:54)
     
    Quote (Patrick @ July 29 2012,12:25)
       
    Quote (midwifetoad @ July 29 2012,13:14)
    As UD will find out.

    A quick glance over there shows that UD is finding it out.  Joe is having a lovely Sunday meltdown, with the occasional prod from Bartax.

    You mean Fartax?

    Am I missing humor or a cultural reference?

    It's Joe who's missing some humour. This is the incredibly subtle nickname he's been using for Bartax.

    Ah.  You didn't expect me to actually read every word he wrote, I hope?

    Date: 2012/07/31 12:22:32, Link
    Author: Patrick
    I'll leave this here for posterity, since it might not last long on UD.

    Date: 2012/07/31 18:37:22, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 31 2012,14:00)
    Quote (CeilingCat @ July 25 2012,05:18)
    Ever since k.e.. posted his er... review of Montseratt, I've been doing some Googling of the travel pages and it looks like a thousand bucks will buy you round trip airfare from Chicago in Feburary which is probably the height of the tourist season.

    You can rent a beach house on a cliff overlooking the ocean for $45 a night and if you have any spare marbles that have to be moved through a garden hose, that will run you $50-$60.  There seems to be sufficient alcohol available on the island and the local constabulary hauls in an occasional thousand marijuana plants from the surrounding mountainsides, which means that there are probably another 9000 they miss, so that's taken care of.

    In short, I'm thinking of an Uncommonly Dense February meet-n-greet on the other "Emerald Isle".  We could soak up the sun, play in the surf, go snorkling, investigate the night life, race marbles through hoses and maybe on Sunday morning go to church and listen to the one and only Kairos Focus preach live.

    Or, we might get lucky and the volcano would blow up the whole island, thus saving us from KF.  Either way, it would be a vacation to remember.

    if this becomes a go i'm in!

    We could go for the complete meltdown by holding a Tantra workshop on Montseratt.  I know a few teachers who could probably be convinced if there were enough guaranteed attendees.

    Celebration of the divine feminine in kairosfocus' backyard!



    Date: 2012/08/01 09:17:49, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ Aug. 01 2012,02:40)
    Quote (Patrick @ July 31 2012,18:37)
     
    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 31 2012,14:00)
       
    Quote (CeilingCat @ July 25 2012,05:18)
    Ever since k.e.. posted his er... review of Montseratt, I've been doing some Googling of the travel pages and it looks like a thousand bucks will buy you round trip airfare from Chicago in Feburary which is probably the height of the tourist season.

    You can rent a beach house on a cliff overlooking the ocean for $45 a night and if you have any spare marbles that have to be moved through a garden hose, that will run you $50-$60.  There seems to be sufficient alcohol available on the island and the local constabulary hauls in an occasional thousand marijuana plants from the surrounding mountainsides, which means that there are probably another 9000 they miss, so that's taken care of.

    In short, I'm thinking of an Uncommonly Dense February meet-n-greet on the other "Emerald Isle".  We could soak up the sun, play in the surf, go snorkling, investigate the night life, race marbles through hoses and maybe on Sunday morning go to church and listen to the one and only Kairos Focus preach live.

    Or, we might get lucky and the volcano would blow up the whole island, thus saving us from KF.  Either way, it would be a vacation to remember.

    if this becomes a go i'm in!

    We could go for the complete meltdown by holding a Tantra workshop on Montseratt.  I know a few teachers who could probably be convinced if there were enough guaranteed attendees.

    Celebration of the divine feminine in kairosfocus' backyard!

    That means I'm going to have to cancel my trip to Montserrat and get a ticket to Jamaica, then.

    I'm telling, Patrick! Rebbbeccccaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!

    I worry that I spend too much time reading closely related blogs when I immediately understand references like this.

    ETA: I feel safe and welcome at AtBC.



    Date: 2012/08/01 10:54:06, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Aug. 01 2012,10:34)
    Quote (Patrick @ Aug. 01 2012,16:17)
    ETA: I feel safe and welcome at AtBC.

    Maybe you shouldn't (evil smiley)...

    Are you trying to use your canine privilege to oppress me?

    Date: 2012/08/01 14:27:53, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 01 2012,13:35)
    I suspect he knows more Biology than the DI denizens combined.

    I'll bet he doesn't "know" as many things that are flat out wrong, though!

    Date: 2012/08/01 18:51:23, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Physicists have converted information into energy.
    Quote
    The first demonstration of an information-heat engine could revolutionise the way nanomachines get their power.

    I'm sure there's no way that the denizens of UD could quote mine this research to show how quantum entanglement means goddidit.

    Date: 2012/08/02 16:19:03, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 02 2012,13:52)
    PAV gets all sciency:
    . . .

    Go away little PaV.

    Date: 2012/08/04 09:56:45, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Soapy Sam @ Aug. 04 2012,07:51)
    [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/evolutionary-biologist-larry-moran-vows-to-reach-the-uncommitted-by-continuing-to-insult-o

    pponents/#comments]Nasty Man[/URL]

    ForJah testifies how he came to conclude the evidence was against evolutionary theory. It's all down to Shouty People.

       
    Quote
    Dr.Moran’s nasty behavior influenced me to choose ID as the better option because he doesn’t show himself to be a kind or caring person. The ID community has rarely uses ad hominem attacks [...]

    Has anyone pointed him to Joe's blog?

    It's the weekend, I'm not going to waste it digging up choice quotes from PaV, Upright BiPed, kairosfocus, and the rest of the UD misogynists.  Just check any thread where Elizabeth Liddle participated.

    Date: 2012/08/04 13:33:51, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 04 2012,12:04)
    Klinghoffer discusses Moran at EN&V. He doesn't think "IDiot" is very effective.

     
    Quote
    If I'm wrong, I invite his fellow members of the Internet Darwin brigade to assure me that they find Moran's signature term effective and amusing. PZ Myers, for example, what do you say?


    Comments are closed.

    You could always raise the issue on the Biologic Institute Facebook page.  It takes them a few minutes to ban people there.  I think it's Klinghoffer running it.

    Date: 2012/08/04 15:26:17, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 04 2012,16:02)
    Quote (Patrick @ Aug. 04 2012,14:33)
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 04 2012,12:04)
    Klinghoffer discusses Moran at EN&V. He doesn't think "IDiot" is very effective.

       
    Quote
    If I'm wrong, I invite his fellow members of the Internet Darwin brigade to assure me that they find Moran's signature term effective and amusing. PZ Myers, for example, what do you say?


    Comments are closed.

    You could always raise the issue on the Biologic Institute Facebook page.  It takes them a few minutes to ban people there.  I think it's Klinghoffer running it.

    The sublime IDiocy of inviting reactions to "IDiot" on a board with comments are closed is enough for me.

    Too bad.  Someone could let him know that Myers already agreed with Moran.

    At least the quality of their research is consistent across everything they publish.

    Date: 2012/08/06 11:38:23, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 06 2012,12:25)
    Quote (REC @ Aug. 06 2012,11:18)
    Why do BA and other ID types like this argument?

     
    Quote
    the vast majority of times, [mutations] have a negative impact on the information content inherent in the genome). i.e. If nature is allowed to run her full course, without outside intervention, humans, as well as all other life on earth, is headed for extinction!


    Life's extinction is evidence of a design?
    Or is this some sort of countdown to the second coming?

    I've never understood why bacteria haven't succumbed to genetic entropy, seeing as how they reproduce about a hundred thousand time more rapidly than humans.


    Poor things.

    Is there a thorough fisking of the genetic entropy nonsense available online?  BA77 is raising it on the Biologic Institute's Facebook page.

    Date: 2012/08/07 12:56:34, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 07 2012,13:32)
    Quote
    A bacteria is as good as a T.rex, Kathie gal.


    I can think of something I'd rather see than a bacterium. Anyone want to guess what I think would be more exciting than a bacterium.

    Hint: it would be less "complex."

    A creationist?

    Tip the fish, give the waitress my coat.

    Date: 2012/08/07 14:52:59, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 07 2012,15:38)
    Upright Biped mistakes a dream for real life and says this:
     
    Quote
    ID can demonstate at a purely material level that the recorded information in the genome is not merely analogous to other “forms” of recorded information, but instead exhibits the exact same material consequences. Those material consequences demonstrate an irreducibly complex core which neccesarily includes two arrangements of matter which must be coordinated yet do not interact. Moreover, ID can demonstrate that it is specifically the arbitrary relationship operating within the system which determines biofunction. Finally, ID can pose the logical questions that demonstate that the system could not function in any other way.

    Lol @ Dullped.

    Too bad for the IDCists that they can't demonstrate how this supports their position or how it differs from "Gee, that looks real complicated.  God musta dunnit."

    Date: 2012/08/08 09:16:13, Link
    Author: Patrick
    wd400 asks bornagain77 a simple question:
    Quote
    Are you actually saying all random mutations destroy information? And that, say, once and A -> G mutation has occured the back mutation G -> A either (a) couldn’t happen by random mutation or (b) would also decrease information?

    In either case, I should like an explanation (ideally with[out] blockquotes…) as to why you think this.

    It turns out the answer is "No."  Twelve block quotes spread over three additional comments.

    Date: 2012/08/08 11:03:11, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (DiEb @ Aug. 08 2012,11:29)
    Joe's reply to Bartax sums up the culture of discourse at Uncommon Descent:
     
    Quote
    fartmax- YOU are the one throwing insults around.

    Bartax asks a good question in that thread:
    Quote
    Is UD so desperate for ‘traffic’ that people with severe social difficulties such as Joe are allowed to post without restraint or censure?

    I would love to hear Barry's answer.



    Date: 2012/08/08 11:45:13, Link
    Author: Patrick
    If Bartax is lurking here, perhaps s/he will consider bringing up the posted UD rules:

    No swearing.

    Try to be polite.

    Try to be tolerant.

    Try to keep belligerence and sarcasm in check.


    It's almost like they had Joe in mind!

    Date: 2012/08/08 15:11:04, Link
    Author: Patrick
    I'm not sure what this has to do with ID, but PaV's comment is telling:
    Quote
    I just finished reading a blog entry at a website about high-energy physics. I won’t give the name; but you can easily google the quote.

    Wouldn't want to get in the habit of citing sources at UD.  That could definitely interfere with quote mining.

    Date: 2012/08/10 16:23:00, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 10 2012,17:12)
    Axel thinks deeply (my emphasis):
     
    Quote

    27

    AxelAugust 10, 2012 at 12:47 pm

    Perhaps you will be able to immediately identify some lunacy in the following that renders all of it lunatic; but this is something that, at the moment, I can see no other way of interpeting than the one I delineated above.

    Light must be propelled – assuming photons are not self-propelled/self-created/random-chanced into existence and motion.

    What agency then propels photons?

    It must be eternal (and with an indestructable life?) Isn’t that what physicists currently acknowledge.

    It surely be omniscient, in order to be able to locate its subjects, with a view to striking them with the photons at their absolute speed, irrespective of the speed at which they are moving in the same direction, or whether they are stationary; and just as certainly be omnipotent, in order to be able to do so.

    This agency must, moreover, be very personal, since it treats each and every subject identically, irrespective of the speed the latter might be travelling at in the same direction, or whether he is stationary.

    My only reservation is that it seems more likely that light remains absolute in all its facets, yet somehow, with divine foreknowledge, have provided for the subject to duly adjust HIS speed of travel, in a manner that would not affect the speed at which the light hits him, whether he is stationary or moving.

    The latter musings must be highly speculative, though, since we are totally unfamiliar with the proper reference- frame of photons; just that it isn’t space time – so that it is no given that their interactions in space-time will ever be anything like fully accessible to our understanding – the fabled ‘promissory note’, notwithstanding.

    Perhaps we will be able to identify some lunacy, Axel, yes.

    I wonder if it's Jesus himself who runs around strapping little outboard motors to all the photons, or whether this is a job for the angels.

    Date: 2012/08/15 08:55:56, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 14 2012,19:18)
    Over at the Tard farm Barry Arrogant scores another own goal on the concept of CSI

         
    Quote
    Barry Arrington:  Let me now coin a new term – the “beaut-L.”  Like the economists’ util, a beaut-L is a unit of beauty.

    Now that we have a unit by which we may quantify beauty, can anyone tell me precisely how much more beautiful the Săo Paulo Cathedral is than the dilapidated shack?  Does the cathedral have beaut-Ls while the shack has only 20 (or negative 20) beaut-Ls?

    The answer, of course, is that the question is meaningless.  Any attempt to assign precise mathematical quantities to beauty is facile.  Nevertheless, beauty exists and some objects are more beautiful than other objects.

    We can conclude from these examples that our Darwinist friends’ are wrong when they insist that a concept must always be precisely mathematically quantifiable in order for it to be meaningful.  And I further conclude that my inability to assign a quantity of CSI* to Mount Rushmore does not mean that the sculpture does not nevertheless exhibit CSI.


    linky

    I bet to a poor peasant who could live in the shack but not in the cathedral, the shack would be way more beautiful.

    Seems like Barry has admitted the amount of CSI, like the quantity of beauty, is a completely subjective determination and therefore not useful for any objective scientific judgments.

    Thank goodness we have idiots for enemies.

    Dembski disagrees.  His description of CSI makes it clear that he considers it a quantitative, measurable metric.  I would like to see his response to Barry.

    This is also being discussed over on Lizzie's blog, thanks to Neil Rickert.

    Date: 2012/08/15 12:39:43, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 15 2012,12:48)
    Someone get a link to Joe's origional Tardus Opus at Untelligent Reasoning up at UD, please.

    Oh yes, please.  Joe vs Barry in the tardagon!

    Date: 2012/08/15 16:08:05, Link
    Author: Patrick
    mphillips is on a hiding to nothing:
    Quote
    As there are plenty of three dimensional object descriptions available would it be possible for you to describe, in pseudocode, the algorithm for how you would go about converting a given set of these “digitized charts” into a specific value of CSI?

    File formats that may be of interest here include MD3 and VRML.

    I’d be interested to attempt to program such a utility, if you could describe a potential in principle implementation.


    Gee, what happened the last time someone offered to do that?

    He does get in a link to Joe's cake post a few comments later, though.

    Date: 2012/08/16 15:08:50, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 16 2012,16:04)


    Looks like Upright has had to hide behind Barrys skirt.

    If dodging questions was a bannable offence at UD no fucker would be allowed to post ever.

    Bunch of cowards.

    Directly above those comments, Upright BiPed repeatedly avoids answering direct questions posed by mphillips.  I thought they'd let him/her post a bit longer since there aren't very many non-creationists active at UD after the great banning.  Apparently their innate hypocrisy and lack of intellectual integrity trumps their desire for traffic.

    Date: 2012/08/16 16:24:51, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 16 2012,17:09)
    But he has a point. UB has more important things to do than ask questions his discussants won't answer.

    Like return to TSZ and sift through the shifting pile of questions posed to him there, some dozens of times, that he just can't bring himself to address.

    If only hypocrisy were physically painful.

    I was hoping that mphillips would last long enough to post those questions from TSZ to UD.

    Date: 2012/08/16 17:10:03, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 16 2012,18:05)
    I was posting from a tablet and didn't save the key post.

    My imperfect recollection is he tried to get UB to explain what his argument had to do with ID. Was he asserting that the genetic code, in its current form, was present in the first living things, and if so, could UB please cite an authority for this claim.

    If so, then how did it get there: god, aliens, I don't know?

    There was a bit more regarding OOL research, and a recommendation that UB should do some reading on the subject.

    One of mphillips' comments on that topic remains:
    Quote
    I suppose, while I await your citations, I could say this.

    Yes, evolution depends on a mechanism being available for inheritance. However the only person who is arguing for the fixity of this mechanism is you, nobody else.

    Presumably you believe that the protein synthesis system as we know it came into existence with the first lifeform. What leads you to believe this? Citation?

    I have to assume that everybody working in OOL recognizes the mechanism of inheritance must have arisen without the aid of evolution, and that means that much research is aimed at finding those simple replications that could arise spontaneously given prevailing conditions on pre-life earth.

    So your argument is not really much of an argument at all is it? You are simply saying the same thing that everybody else is saying except adding “and that was only possible by intelligent design” at the end.

    When you are done riding the coat-tails of others research then perhaps you’ll be ready to publish your claim in the literature, presumably with citations.

    So on the one hand we have thousands of man-hours of research being done a day on this problem and on the other hand we have you, who’s claim seems to be summed up with:

    “Life only comes from life”.

    If that’s the case, what life did life as we know it come from?

    The long and the short of it is that your claim that evolution itself requires the system in order to exist remains just that – a claim, nothing more or less. Just one claim among many. When you actually put the work into making it supported then perhaps it’ll become more then a mere claim.

    No doubt Barry will place Upright BiPed in moderation until he answers these questions.  That would only be fair.

    Date: 2012/08/17 10:12:56, Link
    Author: Patrick
    I want to save this comment by David W. Gibson because it succinctly summarizes the flaws in Upright BiPed's argument and is therefore likely to disappear:
    Quote
    Quote
    After all, you’ve already stated that I have “fled” a conversation, leaving that conversation “unfinished”. I would, of course, take immediate issue with that particular positioning statement, given that I was one person defending my argument against 8-12 opponents, non-stop for a period of 130+ days (surmounting well over 1100 comments in the process), while not a single person there actually demonstrated that any of the material observations I had made were false.

    And there it is, right?

    Well, not exactly. I have tried to follow some of that conversation (certainly I haven’t read every post by everyone), and as far as I can tell nobody has any problems with any of the material observations you have made at all. The complaint is instead that you have been asuming the consequent.

    As a vastly simplified example, consider the following argument:
    1) All dogs have four legs (material observation)
    2) This object has four legs (material observation)
    3) Therefore, this object is a dog! (conclusion)

    As far as I can see, people can legitimately dispute the logic of this conclusion without the slightest question of a single material observation.

    As I read it, this compliant was made repeatedly, by many people, who presented their case very clearly. “Answering” them by (once again) defending the material observations is missing the point.

    Date: 2012/08/17 17:44:46, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 17 2012,12:23)
    I read UPB's argument somewhat differently.

    1. All semiotic systems are the products of design.
    2. The genetic code plus translation is a semiotic system.
    3. Therefore the genetic code plus translation is designed.

    This strikes me as wrong not because of a logical error, but because he assumes that which he is ultimately trying to prove.

    There is another construction he has used

    1. All known instances of semiotic systems are designed.
    2. Therefore all instances are designed.

    That does appear to be his argument in some cases.

    keiths provided another summary of Upright BiPed's argument at Lizzie's blog several weeks ago:
    Quote
    He’s arguing instead that 1) all semiotic systems are irreducibly complex (and therefore designed), 2) that the protein synthesis system is a semiotic system, and 3) that the protein synthesis system is therefore designed.
    Expanding my earlier synopsis:

    X1. All irreducibly complex systems are designed.
    X2. All semiotic systems are irreducibly complex.
    X3. Therefore, all semiotic systems are designed.

    Y1. A system involving representation(s) and protocol(s) is a semiotic system.
    Y2. Protein synthesis involves a representation and a protocol.
    Y3. Therefore, protein synthesis is a semiotic system.

    Z1. All semiotic systems are designed (by X3).
    Z2. Protein synthesis is a semiotic system (by Y3).
    Z3. Therefore, the protein synthesis system is designed.

    Because it hinges on the discredited premise X1, Upright’s argument is in big trouble. Evidently he understands this — hence his obstinate refusal to clarify things.

    Upright BiPed has refused to confirm or deny that this is an accurate distillation of his voluminous prose, despite repeated requests to do so.

    Date: 2012/08/20 14:56:01, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 20 2012,15:10)
    Quote (REC @ Aug. 19 2012,21:55)
    Oshit-

    Sals gone and started a tard fight royale:

    Link

    Responses are predictably hilarious. I feel bad for Sal. It has to hurt to have a shred of knowledge, and realize most of your side are liars with knowledge, or the faithful without. If he pulls back the curtain any more.....

    Wow, Slimy Sal sure kicked the hornets' nest with that one!  You've even got some Fundies coming out of lurk mode and signing up at UD just to snipe at him and post their Creation defense!

    Way to go Sal!

    He's also participating over at Lizzie's blog where he disagrees publicly with Granville Sewell and seems to be making a good faith effort to learn some thermodynamics.

    It might be time to start dusting off a spot on the Group W bench here for him.

    Date: 2012/08/20 16:27:51, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 20 2012,16:45)
    Having bailed out of the thread where he promised answers, Upright opines on a new thread:

     
    Quote
    Upright BiPed August 20, 2012 at 2:19 pm

    A Gene,

       …the only evidence put forward “for” ID is that evolution doesn’t explain something: there is no positive evidence for ID in the natural world.

    Demonstrating what evolution cannot do is not the test standard created by IDist, that standard was set by Charles Darwin himself:

    VI. Difficulties of the Theory

    “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”.

    - – - – - – - –

    Now, what Darwin did was to propose the impossible as a test of his theory (one cannot prove that something didn’t happen), so such a test is not viable for the modern materialist ideologue who will never accept any amount of contrary evidence (effectively isolating the theory of disconfirmation). Such a test would have only been meaningful for the rational colleagues Darwin was speaking to in his day.

    In the meantime, IDist have shown a biosystem that could not have developed in incremental steps, and in the process have fulfilled one of their predictions.


    Now why didn't he just say that at TSZ, where it could have been discussed? Or on the the mphillips thread?

    edit to add link

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-430623

    From this:
    Quote
    If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

    Upright BiPed gets this:
    Quote
    Now, what Darwin did was to propose the impossible as a test of his theory (one cannot prove that something didn’t happen)

    But then immediately claims this:
    Quote
    In the meantime, IDist have shown a biosystem that could not have developed in incremental steps, and in the process have fulfilled one of their predictions.

    Which is exactly what he said was impossible based on his failure to comprehend Darwin's very clear prose.

    I think I see why he didn't post that on TSZ.

    Date: 2012/08/22 13:50:09, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 22 2012,12:13)
    Quote (Soapy Sam @ Aug. 22 2012,06:40)
    One does wonder what his repeated threats of 'stronger measures' mean, if not some kind of moderation? Obviously, he doesn't mean Mr Leathers, even if we say that for the yuks.

    He means this:
     
    Quote
    PS: Sal, I appreciate your point, however I must note that the same Dr Liddle has been associated with enabling behaviour for some very vile hate sites that have indulged outing, target-painting, slander and a lot more; for years. I have called on her to clean up what is going on at her own site, where there is slander. (And FYI, in British law jurisdictions, responsibilities under tort are a lot stricter than in the US, where some appallingly bad court decisions have eaten the heart out of protection against defamation, hence much of that “average” behaviour on the Internet. If she does not clean up her act, she is inviting serious actions. That, FYI Dr Liddle et al, is a caution about a vulnerability you are cultivating, not a threat.)

    Please do this, Gord.  Please, please, please.

    My late father-in-law was a law professor.  In his opinion, three verdicts should be available in a civil suit:
    1.  Finding for the plaintiff.
    2.  Finding for the defendant.
    3.  Get the fuck out of my court.

    I find it interesting that kairosfocus mentions "outing" as an "enabling behavior for some very vile hate sites" since the only place I've ever had a nym outed was on UD (my fault for getting sloppy with my security practices, but it was vjtorley who noticed it on another site and broadcast it on UD).

    Naturally, kairosfocus immediately rose to my defense and condemned vjtorley's behavior.  In some parallel universe.

    If only hypocrisy were physically painful....

    Date: 2012/08/23 09:49:05, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 23 2012,09:20)
    Oh it's about to get good!

    Joe:

    Quote
    25JoeAugust 23, 2012 at 5:21 am
    vel:

    You are excitable ,KF, the porn allusion was aimed at Mayor( Joe) who managed to get himself banned for posting porn.

    Nope, I did not post any porn. Obviously you have no clue as to what porn is.

    By vel’s “logic” Lizzie Liddle posted porn on her own blog.


    Is Joe really attempting to make the argument that it is acceptable for him to post explicit pictures of genitalia as long as said pictures are not intended to make the viewers sexually aroused?

    If kairosfocus gets aroused by a picture posted by Joe, does he make a sound?

    Date: 2012/08/24 13:47:47, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 24 2012,14:45)
    Upright continues (same link as above, plus 1).

    Quote
    Through an interesting turn of events, I was given the opportunity to have an audience with a physicist that many would consider an authority on these specific topics. I can say this with some confidence because his peers have already honored him as such more than once. There is no need in asking for his name because (#1) I do not have his permission to give it and (#2) I wouldn’t anyway. This man is an ardent materialist who was kind enough to review the larger argument I am making here and give me his response to it. I have no intentions of dragging him out to be slaughtered by the ideologues whom have already shown what they will do to anyone who would stain themselves by agreeing with an ID proponent. It’s not going to happen.

    The reason I bring this up is because I do intend on sharing the first line of his response. ...

    blah, blah, blah ,,,

    And in contrast, here is the first line in the response from a physicist motivated by evidence, without the emotional requirement to belittle and berate any perceived lesser person who holds a different opinion:
    Quote

       I agree with everything you say, although I often use different terms. I try to stick with the vocabulary of physics as much as possible. This is just one example of the arbitrariness …


    Perhaps someone can translate this into something meaningful.

    I passed that through the Creationst-Babble-to-English translator and came up with "Imma quote mine a made up source, bitches!"

    Date: 2012/08/26 09:46:47, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 26 2012,10:39)
    This is why you always have and always will lose, UD, because you don't even play. Shame on Barry. I don't want to hear diddly about censorship from him, the bully.

    I think that calling Arrington a bully gives him too much credit.  He would desperately like to be able to act like a bully, and seems to see that kind of behavior as strength, but he lacks even that kind of limited, corrupted power.

    I won't feed his fantasy by granting him that sobriquet.

    Date: 2012/08/27 06:48:55, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 27 2012,01:01)
    Maus has been disappeared:  
    Quote
    24 Maus August 26, 2012 at 7:23 pm

    UD Editors: Maus is no longer with us. He was a gutless coward and will not be missed.

    "Gutless coward"?  This from a man who sued people for calling him a "bully"?

    No wonder Barry and Joe are such good buddies -- those Internet tough guys have to stick together.

    It would be a real shame if Maus ever met Barry IRL.

    Date: 2012/08/29 13:22:20, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 29 2012,11:54)
    I'm schizophrenic. I keep hearing a loudspeaker in the ceiling.

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....-431734

    But apparently it's not to be found.

    I've been trying to stay off the hard stuff, but I did follow that link (shorter version here).  I nearly choked on my lunch from laughing, thanks.

    I know I'm supposed to show compassion to all living things, but I must admit to very momentarily being amused by the mental image of kairosfocus' apoplexy.

    It's interesting that the time between refusing to answer a question and claiming to have already answered it (without, of course, providing a reference) is getting shorter over there.  The period was a week or two when I was trying to get them to compute CSI, it seems to be on the order of hours now.

    Date: 2012/08/29 16:43:17, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 29 2012,17:13)
    No, YOU have been corrected for insistent derailing

    Stop!  Stop!  My sides are hurting every time I re-read that!

    Date: 2012/08/29 22:04:17, Link
    Author: Patrick
    I just tried to follow a link to UD.  This is the most sensible thing I've ever seen on that site:

    Date: 2012/08/30 07:39:23, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 30 2012,03:05)
    Barry, being the fine upstanding citizen that he is wrote this:
     
    Quote
    A Gene @ 100.
    You can’t give reasons that 9×9=81. You can only say the same thing in different words as KF did above.

    Poor A Gene can't even say that - the silent bannhammer has descended.

    EDIT: Oh yes, that was before A Gene told kf (in effect) that he couldn't argue that multiplication is repeated addition, because Barry had said one couldn't give reasons for it. He was sorely tempted to suggest Barry ban kf for this, but thought he might get banned himself. It was then his ironymeter started smoking.

    I see that Amadan has already brought up Russell and Whitehead.  I suppose adding Peano to the mix would be cruel piling on.

    It's a good morning when I learn that DNA transcription isn't a chemical process and there are no reasons for mathematical operations, all before I finish my second cup of coffee.

    Date: 2012/08/30 09:00:19, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Aug. 30 2012,09:36)
    Quote (paragwinn @ Aug. 29 2012,22:31)
    Darwinist biochemistry can't teach you what Joe can teach you [UD link]:      
    Quote
    I see that Allan Miller has gone off of the edge- earth to Allan- there isn’t any physio-chemical connection between the nucleotide (codon) and the amino acid it represents- the codon does not become the amino acid via some chemical reaction.

    Yes there are chemical connections/ bonds between the nucleotides. Yes there are chemical connections/ bonds between the tRNA and its amino acid. Yes there are chemical connections/ bonds between the amino acids in the polypeptide. And all of that is irrelevant to what I said.

    Thanks, Joe, I was about to fall over the edge myself!

    What Joe is trying to say in his IDiot way is that the code could have been different.  UUU could have been leucine instead of phenylalanine.  That is irrelevant as to whether the process of transcription is based on merely physics and chemistry.

    So the argument is:

    1.  We observe mapping A
    2.  We can imagine other mappings
    3.  . . .
    4.  Therefore, Jesus!

    Could you help me with step 3?

    Date: 2012/08/31 15:23:19, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 31 2012,16:13)
    Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 27 2012,12:47)
    Quote (Freddie @ Aug. 27 2012,08:35)
    ha ha ha .... brilliant, KF you are the best!
         
    Quote
    In addition, are you aware that one of these denizens has operated a photography business that openly posts NSW pictures, including of a suspiciously youthful young miss whom the then deputy commissioner of police here estimated to be 16 YO at most (never mind that person’s assertion that she was 23). And yes, operators and denizens of said site, I spoke with both the Police and the Attorney general’s Office here.

    You gotta read the whole screed - it's a tsumani of spittle.  Melt-down Monday!

    NSW photos? I guess kf would prefer NT photos.

    But not if they're of Darwin, obviously.

    He's just mad that there aren't enough penises for his ...taste.

    Date: 2012/09/02 10:51:45, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (keiths @ Sep. 01 2012,20:52)
     
    Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 01 2012,15:13)
    OK. I've been hearing search for a search for years and just tuned it out as  bullshit. Can someone play devil's advocate and put the best possible face on this? Explain how it could possibly be relevant?

    I'm not joking.

    Okay, here's my best straight-faced attempt at presenting Dembski's argument:
       
    Quote
    1.  A search is a process which attempts to find targets within a larger space of possibilities.

    2.  A search can be run over and over.  Each time it is run, it "lands on" one point in the space of possibilities.  If that point is one of the targets, then the search has succeeded.  If the landing point is not a target, then the search has failed.

    3.  A blind search is one in which the "landing point" is chosen purely at random out of the space of possibilities, without favoring any points over others.

    4.  If the possibility space is huge and the target space is tiny, then a blind search will rarely succeed. The odds of hitting the target are just too low.  In other words, the cost of finding the target is high with a blind search.

    5.  If we use a better search, we improve the odds of hitting the target.  In other words, we can reduce the cost of finding the target by employing a better search.

    6.  However, finding a better search is itself a search ("the search for a search").  It has its own cost, which must be factored in.

    7.  The total cost of finding a target therefore includes both the cost of the search plus the cost of the "search for a search".

    8.  According to the Law of Conservation of Information, this total cost is always greater than or equal to the cost of finding the target through a blind search.  One way or another, you have to pay the piper in order to find the target.

    9.  Evolution is a search:  it looks for viable organisms (the targets) within the much larger space of possible organisms.

    10.  Evolution obviously cannot succeed as a blind search, because the target space is too small relative to the possibility space.  However, evolution uses the fitness landscape as a source of information to zero in on the target space. (A designer may also inject information at crucial moments.)

    11.  The fitness landscape doesn't come for free. The total cost of the evolutionary search has to include the cost of the information contained in the fitness landscape.

    12.  The Law of Conservation of Information tells us that the total cost of the evolutionary search, including the cost of the information contained in the fitness landscape, equals or exceeds the cost of a blind search.

    13.  Purely material processes don't generate information.  They merely rearrange information that was already there. Therefore, no material process can "buy" you a fitness landscape.  

    14.  Thus, the information in the fitness landscape comes from an immaterial intelligence.  (And so does any information that is injected along the way.)

    15.  Without this information, evolution could not succeed.  

    16.  One way or another, then, evolution depends for its success on information generated by an immaterial intelligence.

    It's riddled with holes, but that, to the best of my knowledge, is the argument that Dembski is actually making.

    I would love to see Dembski's response to this.  However, like Upright BiPed and his semiotic argument, Dembski avoids clarity in order to insulate himself from potential refutation.

    Quote
    5.  If we use a better search, we improve the odds of hitting the target.  In other words, we can reduce the cost of finding the target by employing a better search.

    This is where Dembski starts to abuse the NFL theorems.  He's slipping in the concepts of explicit targets and costs that he'll misapply to evolutionary biology later.

    Quote
    6.  However, finding a better search is itself a search ("the search for a search").  It has its own cost, which must be factored in.

    This is just incorrect (Dembski's argument, not your summary.)  Some algorithms work better on some fitness landscapes than do others.  It is not surprising that we observe an algorithm (known evolutionary mechanisms) that works well in our fitness landscape (reality) actually working in our fitness landscape.  Observing an algorithm that works worse than blind search would be the real surprise.

    Quote
    7.  The total cost of finding a target therefore includes both the cost of the search plus the cost of the "search for a search".

    Here's where Dembski goes totally off the rails because of the idea of a cost introduced previously.  In the only fitness landscape we observe, only those search functions that work in this landscape will be observed.  There is no need to search for a search function.

    Quote
    8.  According to the Law of Conservation of Information, this total cost is always greater than or equal to the cost of finding the target through a blind search.  One way or another, you have to pay the piper in order to find the target.

    Once again, Dembski fails to show that any search for a search function is necessary or observed.

    Quote
    9.  Evolution is a search:  it looks for viable organisms (the targets) within the much larger space of possible organisms.

    Just because some aspects of known evolutionary mechanisms can be modeled as a search does not mean that evolution is a search.  IDCists often make this error of  mistaking the map for the territory.

    Evolutionary mechanisms explore the "organism space" immediately adjacent to known good solutions.  The much larger space of possible organisms is immaterial.

    Quote
    10.  Evolution obviously cannot succeed as a blind search, because the target space is too small relative to the possibility space.  However, evolution uses the fitness landscape as a source of information to zero in on the target space. (A designer may also inject information at crucial moments.)

    11.  The fitness landscape doesn't come for free. The total cost of the evolutionary search has to include the cost of the information contained in the fitness landscape.

    This is where Dembski's entire argument falls apart.  The idea that the observed fitness landscape (aka reality) represents a cost presupposes his conclusion that it was somehow selected from a set of alternatives.

    Quote
    12.  The Law of Conservation of Information tells us that the total cost of the evolutionary search, including the cost of the information contained in the fitness landscape, equals or exceeds the cost of a blind search.

    Leaving aside the fact that Dembski's "Law" doesn't actually describe any observed regularity, this is just another misuse of the NFL theorems.

    The bottom line is that, accepting ad arguendo that evolution can be modeled as a search, we have the single fitness landscape that we observe and we see that an algorithm that works better than blind search on that landscape is reified in chemical processes that result in evolution.  That's not exactly surprising.

    Dembski might be able to construct a theistic evolution argument from his "search for a search" idea, but it certainly doesn't remotely suggest that known evolutionary mechanisms require intelligent intervention.

    Date: 2012/09/03 10:17:08, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 02 2012,22:17)
    kairosfocus to Joe G:

     
    Quote
    "Joe:  It seems Mathgrrl/Patrick — the latter having confessed to using the former [which properly belongs to a Calculus professor out there . . . ] as a sockpuppet — is forgetting that we at UD keep records"


    linky

    Someone should remind the Manjack Heights Mauler that Joe G was banned at UD under the name "Joseph" and came back a few weeks later as "Joe"

    No double standards to see here folks, just move along...

    "Confessed"?  I was outed by kairosfocus' very good friend vjtorley (admittedly due to my own sloppiness).  Since kairosfocus considers outing to be such egregiously offensive behavior, I'm sure he'll publicly shun vjtorley and stop gratuitously associating my name with the Mathgrrl nym real soon now.

    Date: 2012/09/04 20:41:44, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Now, now, no need to be sizeist.  I lived in Luxembourg for several years and thoroughly enjoyed the experience.  Frankly, I don't think any country should have more people than that.

    Of course, even Lux is 80 times the population of Montserrat.

    Date: 2012/09/05 08:55:41, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Soapy Sam @ Sep. 05 2012,09:29)
    Quote
    Theories of the origin of life based on metabolic cycles cannot be justified by the inadequacy of competing theories: they must stand on their own . . . .


    Substitute "the observed existence of designers" for "metabolic cycles" and you have the a problem with KF's entire schtick.

    FTFY

    kairosfocus almost never has just one problem with his loggorrheic eructations.  He contains multitudes of tard.

    Date: 2012/09/05 09:03:10, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Soapy Sam @ Sep. 05 2012,10:01)
    Quote (Patrick @ Sep. 05 2012,08:55)
     
    Quote (Soapy Sam @ Sep. 05 2012,09:29)
     
    Quote
    Theories of the origin of life based on metabolic cycles cannot be justified by the inadequacy of competing theories: they must stand on their own . . . .


    Substitute "the observed existence of designers" for "metabolic cycles" and you have the a problem with KF's entire schtick.

    FTFY

    kairosfocus almost never has just one problem with his loggorrheic eructations.  He contains multitudes of tard.

    I guess ... :)

    His name is Legion, then, for many demons have entered into him. (Sam 5:9)

    And I'm sure he feels ashamed for enjoying the experiences so much.

    Date: 2012/09/07 10:52:45, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 07 2012,11:44)
    *applause*

    someone please give this man an award for christ's sake.

    although that is a bit more data than my design can handle, i am taking it as a vote for DrBillyBilly?

    Hear, hear!

    The only award left out is one for quasi-pseudo-i'll-never-admit-i'm-wrong latching.

    Date: 2012/09/09 08:49:26, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 08 2012,17:27)
    No votes yet for the yappy little turd Behe?

    Behe is like lite beer compared to the crystal meth of kairosfocus or the heroin of Dembski.

    Plus, he did so much good for the pro-science side at Dover that it's hard to consider him a cdesign proponentsist.

    Date: 2012/09/12 14:40:19, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 12 2012,14:08)
    Upright:    
    Quote
    By the way, you can see the practical benefits (of maintaining this enforced separation) in the comments coming from TSZ. Keith is literally in a full blown tantrum, rocking back and forth in his seat and kicking his feet. He and Onlooker act as if I myself invented biosemiosis, which is an incoherent argument with absolutely no basis in material fact. It simply cannot be allowed. You’ll also notice how the frontline scientists and researchers I have approached (i.e. Moran, Matzke, etc) have refused to get into a debate with me about it. It’s a no winner for them, and they have something to protect. They sure as hell are not going to engage in a public argument over the meaning of words like “arbitrary” and “information”. That’s beneath them. They will leave that to the internet’s bottom feeders like Patrick and Keith, who are unencumbered by the thought of appearing completely irrational.


    No, really.

    And, whatever you do, read the comment before that one then re-read the above.

    So what's Upright scoring on the scale now anyway, as we've got to the "they are afraid to debate me" state now.

    We can't be that far away from a YouTube video? Or photocopied A4 sheet he'll give away on street corners?

    And Upright, debate comes after you've published a definitive version of your claim. Tard.

    I got a mention even though I don't even read UD anymore?

    I must have really hurt Upright BiPed's feelings over at The Skeptical Zone.  I should meditate on the need to extend compassion even to screaming fuckwits those unable or unwilling to see the flaws in their deliberately evasive and nonsensical arguments.

    Hmm, I seem to recall having an apology already written for a similar occasion . . .
    Quote
    I was raised to be polite, which forces me to consider apologizing to the denizens of Uncommon Descent. However, with the exception of Mrs. O'Leary, who was unfailingly charming in our email exchanges, and Atom, who had not been involved in the discussions but chose to publicly distance himself from vjtorley's actions, there isn't a person there I'd be interested in even having a beer with. Given that, I have to ask myself, to whom should I apologize? Those who claim to be practicing science but refuse to support their claims? Those who continue to lie in the face of clear evidence of their mendacity? Those who quote mine and try to defend their dishonesty? Those who support pseudonymity "for me but not for thee"? Those who are trying so desperately to misappropriate the respect earned by science for their own undeserving religious beliefs? Those who are all too ready to clutch their pearls at some imagined etiquette transgression while hypocritically behaving unbelievably rudely themselves? Those who arrogantly mock what they clearly don't understand? Those willing to censor their opponents rather than address their arguments? Those misogynists who ignore arguments, replying instead "Go away, little girl"? Those who remain willfully ignorant despite the myriad educational resources available to them? Those who deliberately build an insular community to support these behaviors?

    No, these people do not deserve an apology. While most supporters of Intelligent Design Creationism are simply parroting what they hear while sitting in their pews, the IDC proponents at Uncommon Descent have chosen to actively proselytize. Despite the disingenuous ways in which they engage with people knowledgeable about science, they can't help but be exposed to the deep flaws in their own arguments. They cannot claim ignorance. That leaves stupidity, insanity, or wickedness. I find that the evidence supports a combination of all three.

    Yeah, I need to work on the compassion.

    Date: 2012/09/14 15:06:04, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 14 2012,10:48)
    You really only have to read one KF post.

    You read a whole one?  Footnotes, postscripts, and everything?

    Pull the other one.  The next thing you'll be telling me is that you watched all of the videos in a typical bornagain77 post.

    Date: 2012/09/20 12:04:17, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (keiths @ Sep. 20 2012,12:18)
    Quote (BillB @ Sep. 20 2012,06:28)
     
    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 20 2012,14:04)
     
    Quote (BillB @ Sep. 20 2012,07:36)
       
    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 20 2012,13:34)
    Code Sample

    while gap:
          ID

    Error: gap is not defined in this scope

    Code Sample
    gap = True
    while gap:
         Incentive = Buy_My_Book(Recycled_Arguments,CherryPickedData)

    Ok, thanks, that compiles fine now ;)

    Incidentally, the language I am using is not your standard 'C' - it is an undefined language of unknown origin with unknown constraints, but it just happens to behave in a 'C' like fashion if the goal of your code is to prove ID.

    Discussing the origin and operation of the language, the compiler, and how it affects code execution is forbidden!

    As written by Upright Biped:
     
    Quote
    char*_,*O;main(S,l)char**l;{*(O=*(l+++S-1)-1)=13,*l[1]=0;for(;;)for(printf(*l),_=O-1;_>=*l&&++*_>(S+*O+S)*S;*_--=(S+*O)*S);}

    I had to try it.  Got a seg fault.  It is kairosfocus' code!

    Date: 2012/09/22 17:47:01, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Learned Hand @ Sep. 22 2012,17:29)
    Quote (onlooker @ Sep. 22 2012,10:14)
     
    Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 22 2012,05:43)
    It's getting a little slow around here. We need a new meltdown.

    I'm [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/design-inference/it-seems-that-tsz-objector-to-design-af-insists-on-the-long-since-corrected-canard-that-de

    sign-is-a-default-inference/#comment-434129]working on it[/URL]:


    Your comment has been censored on grounds that it accused the censor of censorship.

    You made me look.  Thank you.  I wouldn't want to have missed this:
    Quote
    O makes a false accusation of censorship — probably being amplified all across the slander laced fever swamps as we speak — when O knows full well he was asked to apologise and cease from derail attempts or leave. He chose to leave then tried to return and suggest that he could — with an unresolved matter of uncivil behaviour on his part on the table — hold a separate conversation ignoring the thread owner. Sorry, it does not work that way. Comment removed for cause. KF

    "I'm removing what Onlooker posted because he accused me of censorship.  In the process I'll slander him while complaining about slander on other sites."

    How does his head not explode from the weapons grade hypocrisy?

    ETA:  Bolding in the original.  Like multiple exclamation points, a sure sign of a disturbed mind.



    Date: 2012/09/22 18:31:54, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 22 2012,18:51)
    Quote (Patrick @ Sep. 22 2012,17:47)
     
    Quote
    O makes a false accusation of censorship — probably being amplified all across the slander laced fever swamps as we speak — when O knows full well he was asked to apologise and cease from derail attempts or leave.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ry_of_O

     
    Quote
    Story of O (French: Histoire d'O, IPA: [istwa? do]) is an erotic novel published in 1954 about love, dominance and submission by French author Anne Desclos under the pen name Pauline Réage.

    Ah, kairosfocus must be oiling Mr. Leathers in anticipation of his next meeting with Onlooker.  One can just imagine the look on his face as he rubs his hand up and down the slick shaft, over and over and over . . . .

    Date: 2012/09/25 13:16:49, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Soapy Sam @ Sep. 25 2012,12:53)
    Quote (REC @ Sep. 25 2012,10:09)
    Some more of the "remarkably good" treatment Liddle receives from UD:

    [...]

    And Joe at his place:
             
    Quote
    Well it seems that the cry-baby evotards have been very busy trying to stick up for one of their own- Elizabeth Liddle. I just read a notice from blogger pertaining to my post in which I called Lizzie a liar, an equivocator and a dried-up old hag. True, I can only provide evidence for the first two- that she is a liar and an equivocator. I just inferred the other from what she writes. The post has been taken down and I will just rewrite it and post it. I told the admin that if required I could easily support my claims in any Court- all but the dried up old hag but that may become evident at the trial.


    Classy, especially given who they're talking about, and that she hasn't been active in the discussion lately.

    Perhaps it was the FUCK YOU Joe forgot to mention that Blogger objected to. Fortunately Google has preserved the text, though the page has gone:

             
    Quote
    Intelligent Reasoning: Elizabeth Liddle is a Liar and an Equivocator
    intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/.../elizabeth-liddle-is-liar-and-equi...
    27 Jul 2012 – FUCK YOU LIZ you dried up old hag. Evos don't answer questions. Evos just attack whoever disagrees with them. posted by Joe G @ 9:23 AM ...

    Of course Joe. Evos just attack! Evos are cry-babies! You are pathetic. And the longer you stay at UD, the more hilarious the mass civility-whinges become.

    Joe is a learning opportunity.  I know, intellectually, that he is no doubt a physical coward who would never dare make statements like that to a person's face.  I also know from his online history that he is none too mentally gifted.  Both of these characteristics warrant compassion.

    Nonetheless, I will have to meditate repeatedly before I can let go of the desire to see a video of someone swinging through his hometown and defending Lizzie's honor.

    Date: 2012/09/25 15:37:17, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 25 2012,15:03)
    oh yeah he would definitely meat them in that parking lot where he lives

    Joe actually took his Internet tough guy routine that far?  I'm off to Google....

    Date: 2012/09/27 12:47:31, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 27 2012,13:15)
    At TSZ someone mentioned something about Upright and the Huffpo (spit). Anyone got a link/know more?

    I found three links to some of Upright BiPed's leakage outside of UD.

    Date: 2012/10/08 13:40:42, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Saw this today, reminded me of UD.

    Date: 2012/10/08 21:17:33, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (REC @ Oct. 08 2012,22:09)
    Funny also that the lovers of Pascal forget he died in a ascetic heretic cult as a crazed 39 year old, flagellating himself and pressing skin with necklaces of thorns, denying himself the food and medicine that could have saved him, abandoning an amazing but too brief career in science and technology. No harm in belief???

    I would like to point Barry and the other UDers who are enamored of Pascal's Wager to the last five words of Luke 10:37.

    Date: 2012/10/11 21:29:10, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 11 2012,19:44)
    I must admit I'm fascinated by the blossoming romance between Joe Gallien and Gordon Mullings.

    On paper, it looks bad, one of the most offensive tards on the 'net and one of the most offended tards on the net.

    And yet, it's working, flourishing even. Gordon knows that Joe does things elsewhere that would induce a fit from him if an 'evo' did it, but he can compartmentalise that, because Joe likes him, reads his posts and licks his arse.

    And Joe is helping make KF stupider. KF praises Joe (for agreeing with him) and has even used Joe's own 'design is a mechanism' idiocy.

    I wonder if kairosfocus is upset that Joe and Barry had a love child with Joe's intelligence and Barry's pleasant demeanor.

    Perhaps Mung brings out his compassion.

    Date: 2012/10/14 13:20:11, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (REC @ Oct. 13 2012,23:21)
    Wow....UD has turned into the Mung show hasn't it?

    Any of you worked with old-time coders? "Mung" in some circles means modify/mash until no good, that is, make so many little changes to the code so that it is irreversibly damaged.

    If Mung turns out to be the deepest of all socks, a million internets to you, sir. You Munged UD.

    In college "mung" was the name for the substance that collected under and behind our industrial-sized stove, grill, and deep fat fryer after being used to feed 60 guys for a semester.

    It was . . . unwholesome.

    Date: 2012/10/16 19:52:24, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 16 2012,20:38)
    I've scanned a few recent UD articles and comment sections over the last few days, and it's so starkly different than it was in the mid 2000s. Then, it was crazy, and stupid, but it was crazy and stupid and alive.

    Right after Kitzmiller, they were like the Japanese soldiers on remote Pacific islands the day after Hiroshima--they were doomed, but didn't know it, and still had full bellies and bayonets and were all amped up and enthusiastic. Now they're like those soldiers years after being stranded. They might believe, and still not have a clue, but they're exhausted and weak and no one's coming to save them...

    Is it just withering away across the web, or is UD special? Have the IDers just moved elsewhere? I see Telic Thoughts has had 15 posts since June 13.

    You've nailed it.  I wrote a few words on that very topic over a year ago:

    There is also an optimistic reason why I'll no longer post on UD: They're irrelevant. Uncommon Descent is the only forum where anyone even pretends that Intelligent Design Creationism is remotely scientific. Everyone else, including the supporters in the pews, realizes that it's just the latest incarnation of creationism tarted up in an attempt to get past that pesky separation of church and state. Even at UD, the costume lab coat is wearing thin, with the religious biases of the IDCists clearly on display. We definitely need to be vigilant to prevent religion from being taught in science classes, but if no IDC opponents posted at UD for a few weeks, it would quickly wither from lack of anything to discuss.

    Date: 2012/10/22 18:03:52, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (onlooker @ Oct. 22 2012,15:02)
    gpuccio, think for just one moment about the fact that your main supporters at UD are Joe, Mung, and kairosfocus.

    Fair point.  If any one of those . . . special individuals were cheering me on in an argument, I'd start checking my premises, logic, and ethics immediately.

    Date: 2012/10/26 10:17:27, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (sparc @ Oct. 26 2012,03:30)
    From #1:  
    Quote
    Identify the following (give first and last name where applicable) [1 point each/10 points total]:
    [...]
    German who likened Christianity to smallpox.

    He seemingly really really beleaves the Expelled/Hitler/evolution BS and the bearded loving old white man in the sky however, in a rather strange misogynic Mullings-esque way:  
    Quote
    Someone comes to you explaining that her father abused her growing up and thus she has a hard time
    conceiving of God as a loving father. Instead, she tells you that she much prefers mother imagery for God. In part, she justifies this by claiming that all our language of God is metaphorical and that father imagery for God is simply a hold-over from a patriarchal age. Defend the fatherhood of God against this line of attack.

    If Dembski were interested in advancing apologetics, he would post the answers he gets from this exam on a site that allows open comments.  The next class has to take those comments into account in their answers.

    Eventually he'll have either perfect apologetics or no one passing his class.

    Date: 2012/10/26 10:31:40, Link
    Author: Patrick
    And speaking of Mullings, I would love to see kairosfocus take this class, just to see him try to fit his answers in 250 words.

    Date: 2012/10/26 14:35:39, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (sparc @ Oct. 26 2012,00:31)
    Don't miss the questions Dembski used in the exams of his courses:
    1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

    I skipped to number 19 for the lulz.

    Quote
    2. You are an expert witness in the Dover case. You’ve been asked to summarize why you think intelligent design is a fully scientific theory. Do so here. Sketch out ID’s method of design detection and then show how it applies (or could apply) to biological systems. Further, indicate how ID is testable: what evidence would confirm ID and what evidence would disconfirm ID? Explain how you would run away with your tail between your legs while still collecting your expert witness fee.


    Fixed that for him.

    Date: 2012/10/28 13:04:41, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 28 2012,10:55)
    if ID technique applied to other sciences...

    ID Heliocentrism

    IDH proponent: I have examined the so-called Telescope and found it wanting.

    Scientist: Nobody gives a shit. It works. We all see the same shit.

    IDH: What you call Common Viewing could equally be explained by Common Delusion by an Intelligent Deluder.

    Scientist: (looks at friend, suppresses chuckle)

    IDH: Also, Galileo was a heretic. You're all out to turn people away from Jesus with your materialism which I'm sure will result in great tragedies in East Asia in about 350-400 years. Direct. Result.

    Scientist: Got anything else?

    IDH: um...Tycho Brahe had a funny nose. And Copernicus didn't have much data.

    Scientist: So have you used your notion to produce any new data?

    IDH: Yes, we have several books where we calculate the probability that you're right. Turns out you aren't!

    Scientist: No I mean research...what new stuff have you figured out?

    IDH: Um...Ontorevolving Depth. It's a measurement that shows the earth can't go around the sun.

    Scientist: Fantastic! How do you do this calculation?

    IDH: Give me a minute. I have to get it right.

    (nine years pass)

    IDH: Well, it's more a concept really. We don't actually have any numbers at this point in time...

    Scientist: (looks at watch) okay, I've got to get back to the lab. Ooh, look, retrograde motion in mars.

    IDH: Just what ID predicted! Boy, you Heliocentrists are really out to lunch, aren't you?

    POTW worthy.

    Date: 2012/11/01 14:37:54, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 01 2012,11:35)
    Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 01 2012,01:08)
    Speaking of Denyse:              
    Quote
    Brought to You From the Seattle Analytic Philosophy Club, “Is Intelligent Design Science?”October 31, 2012 Posted by News under News  8 Comments  

    For those of you who live in the Seattle area (which now includes me), the “Seattle Analytic Philosophy Club” are hosting an event on the 28th of November from 7pm till 9pm in Lake Hills Library (15590 Lake Hills Blvd, Bellevue, WA). Here’s the event description from the website:

    Has Denyse fled Canada?  Is the Toronto Based Journalist™ now a damnyankee?  Has her Coffee!! habit become so all powerful and consuming that she's moved to The Source of All Things Caffeine™?  Does anybody care?  Link

    I have a nephew who lives in Seattle.  I must warn him immediately.

    On the bright side, if Denyse stays away from Toronto until the spring stunting season, then the EdgeWalk will finally be safe for decent people.

    It's even worse than that:
     
    Quote
    2  Mung  October 31, 2012 at 3:22 pm

    I’ll try to mark that date.

    (linky)
    Looks like Mung's here too.

    And Casey "Tits" Luskin is going to the meeting, according to the meetup page.  We could be heading for a Black Hole of Tard.

    I've got some family in Seattle.  Perhaps one of them will be willing to get a picture of the event.  I'm sure that future ID scientists tardaholics will find it as historically important as the 5th Solvay Conference.

    Date: 2012/11/01 15:10:38, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 01 2012,16:08)
    booby truly is one of the stupidest people on the internet.

    UD has Joe.  Locally, they win.

    Date: 2012/11/01 17:43:13, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 01 2012,18:33)
    Quote (keiths @ Nov. 01 2012,15:27)
    Bobby's latest contribution at TSZ:
     
    Quote
    Withouit gOd interfering everyone would today have been killed , by Satan, in car accidents and the planet leaving its orbit.

    By Satan, in car accidents and the planet leaving its orbit?  That seems a little over-thorough.

    Lucifer is a belt-and-suspenders kind of guy.

    (No, kairosfocus, not the Mr. Leathers kind of belt.  Calm yourself.)

    ETA:





    Date: 2012/11/20 17:34:41, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (keiths @ Nov. 20 2012,18:28)
    Teh gays are taking over the world:
    Quote (kairosfocus @ November 12 2012, 11:24 pm)
    F/N: In short onlookers, this time, someone is going to go down. For instance, a watershed has been crossed in our civilisation with the homosexualist factionist challenge to marriage, and it is going to be either justice rooted in the natural moral law anchored in creation order — and contrast here on “my genes made me do it” — or tyranny in one form or another. No compromise is possible, and I assure you, this is a hill that people will stand and die on; quite literally. It is “to the lions” time again. That is what the factionists have now so foolishly or even so arrogantly let loose in our civilisation. (Cf a case in point here, with Mr Smith’s foolish and arrogantly disrespectful and potentially job-destroying challenge to and harassment of a Chick-fil-A worker, Rachel.) KF

    Wanting to get married is challenging marriage?

    I realize that kairosfocus feels the need to spew an enormous volume daily, leaving little to no time to actually think about what he says, but that's lacking in sense even by his standards.

    Date: 2012/11/25 19:03:06, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 22 2012,04:04)
    Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 21 2012,13:32)
       
    Quote
    I suppose they have not liked the situation where in recent weeks we have had some useful and reasonably civil exchanges here at UD under living room rules, giving the lie to their drumbeat accusations of censorship.


    Doesn't Mr. leathers enforce "living rooms rules" at your house, Gordon E. Mullings?

    This couldn't possibly be due to your extensively discussing Lizzie's blog because your lot had run out of topics that could maintain some scientific pretense and were reduced to discussions about "How To Go To Heaven"?

    No, perish the thought!

    Indeed.  The threads on Lizzie's blog are keeping UD off of life support.  That's not a good thing.

    My personal view is that if the UD denizens aren't willing to come out of their padded echo chamber then the reality based community shouldn't engage them seriously.  We shouldn't be sanctioning, even implicitly, the gross lack of respect for the free exchange of ideas exemplified by the censors at UD.

    Let them fester in their own excrement.

    Date: 2012/11/27 15:09:07, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 26 2012,20:14)
    Quote (REC @ Nov. 26 2012,19:32)
    Who the fuck is Libby Anne?

    She is on the Patheos network.

    I just read that blog post.  Her argument is pretty straightforward:  If your goal is to reduce the number of abortions, the best way to do so is to ensure that women have access to contraception.  She supports this with referenced studies that appear legitimate.

    If, on the other hand, your goal is to control women and punish them for being sexually active, you would ensure that women have no access to birth control and would make abortion illegal (which does not, as she points out, reduce the rate at all).

    Guess which goal most people in the "pro-life" camp actually have?

    Did vjtorley address her points?  I'm not giving any traffic to UD and I couldn't get through one of his screeds even if I were.

    Date: 2012/11/29 11:48:14, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 29 2012,12:36)
    Just came from UD.

    Date: 2012/11/29 13:21:40, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Isn't UD supposed to be about Intelligent Design?  I'm astonished that they have time for discussions of religion with all the cutting edge, ground breaking new ID science being published so frequently.

    Date: 2012/11/30 19:44:20, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (JLT @ Nov. 30 2012,19:32)
    So, I still have the UD comments in my feed reader, although nowadays I mostly ignore them. But this one caught my eye.
     
    Quote
    JDH

    So I think we already have proof of the supernatural.

    1. Place X number of intelligent people in a room who all speak the same language.
    2. Provide an accurate clock which can be seen by all.
    3. Tell them them to raise their right hands precisely Y seconds from NOW.

    Given our fore-knowledge of crowd behavior ( see for exapmle films of the Nazi army before Hitler ) we can assume such an experiment would be successful ( all right hands raised in the precise time as humanly measured ) and that X and Y are completely arbitrary ( space and time constraints allowing ).

    I contend there is no natural explanation for the above.

    1. From what we know about human beings, it was a voluntary response to raise the right hand ( they have the ability to NOT do). We can show this by before hand telling an arbitrary population of the group that they will receive 1 million dollars if they do not follow the command given.
    2. There is no conceivable natural way that the mere speaking of the words at T=0 formed a natural set of preconditions in all X people causing the raising of the right hand at T=Y. This solution is highly improbable.
    3. Therefore it only makes sense that the X people made a willful decision to tie some abstract future event ( the ticking of clock hands arbitrarily forward in time ) to a willful act of raising their hands.
    4. But booth of the above willful acts ( deciding to tie the act to a future event, and executing the act at that time ) being determined by an immaterial will lies outside the realm of the natural and are supernatural events.
    5. Thus the existence of the supernatural is proven.

    TL;DR: people raising their hands when told to do so proves the existence of the supernatural (and Jesus, presumably).

    I just had to post this, it's such a fine example of pure and undiluted TARD, brought tears to my eyes.

    Ahh, that's the good stuff.  Slipping in "immaterial will" takes it from the ridiculous to the sublime.

    Date: 2012/12/20 10:39:17, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Has anyone with a live sock wished UD a Merry Kitzmas yet?

    Date: 2013/01/23 07:10:20, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 22 2013,19:50)
    UD is celebrating their 10,000th post.

    All the uncommonly dense thread comments here add up to appx 67,600.

    good times had by all. Someday I'll tax my PC by trying to do a rough word count on the total number of words we've expended making fun of them.

    Given the prolific bloviation of kairosfocus, ba77, vjtorley, and several other UD regulars, I wouldn't be surprised to find the word count of those 10,000 posts to be higher than that of AtBC's 67,600.

    The ratio of logical points made to word count would be a different story.

    Date: 2013/01/30 19:02:21, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Glen Davidson @ Jan. 30 2013,19:41)
    You'd think we would have already done so if we were really as intent on serving Satan as they claim that we are.  I mean really, I only want to serve Satan a little bit.

    Glen Davidson

    C'mon, he deserves more than that.





    Date: 2013/02/01 15:52:42, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 01 2013,14:10)
    granville:

    Quote
    Here are a couple of difficult mathematical problems for you to work on, in your spare time:

    And here is a difficult problem from biology:

    [longish snip]
    The proofs that the above mathematical problems are impossible to solve were quite difficult, but there is a very simple proof that the biological problem posed above is impossible to solve. All one needs to do is realize that if a solution were found, we would have proved something obviously false, that a few (four, apparently) fundamental, unintelligent forces of physics alone could have rearranged the fundamental particles of physics into libraries full of science texts and encyclopedias, computers connected to monitors, keyboards, laser printers and the Internet, cars, trucks, airplanes, nuclear power plants and space shuttles. A very simple “proof”, but I cannot imagine how anything in science could ever be proved more conclusively, it is all the proof I need, at least.


    linky

    argument from incredulity

    creationists are just so boring.

    Declaring something "obviously false" is all the proof Sewell needs?  It must be easy to get an A in his math classes.

    Date: 2013/02/02 11:00:28, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (REC @ Feb. 02 2013,11:31)
    Quote (didymos @ Feb. 02 2013,02:51)
    LOL. That muslim dude that popped up recently is proselytizing at the UDites by enlightening them to the fact that Christianity is actually based on the heretical lies of one Mr. Paul ( née Saul) of Tarsus. On the whole, this has not been very well received. Still, KF and Batshit seem to be making the most of this opportunity to preach it like it is.

    Oh, and Muslim Dude has decided it was also a fantastic time to inform everyone there that 9/11 was an inside job.  And additionally, the work of the Jews. Money quote:

     
    Quote
    9/11 and 7/7 to name but a few are clearcut inside jobs so come to terms with it and get over it!


    Can't decide if Poe or not.  In any case, I expect there will be an involuntary departure from the Big Tent in due course.

    I don't think that is a Poe. It has YouTube posts going back years under that name.

    Nope-UD has attracted yet another genuine crackpot.

    Almost time to pull the string....

    Date: 2013/02/20 13:18:26, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 19 2013,20:42)
    Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 20 2013,11:03)
         
    Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 19 2013,15:31)
           
    Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 19 2013,16:28)
           
    Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 19 2013,14:33)
    Bully makes up for Densey's absence by sticking a glaring typo in his latest thread heading:
               
    Quote
    Nick Matzke: All True Scotsman Believe in Darwinian Evolution

    UD link

    Nick Matzke has shown up on that thread.  Arse-kickings are being administered.

    But won't that get him banned from there? ;)

    Probably, although for some reason they cut him more slack than most.

    The reason would be his credentials, in my opinion. Mike Elzinga has noticed this over at TSZ, noting:
       
    Quote
    This is ID/creationist heaven; getting a free ride on the back of a scientist who is willing to confront them, and then putting on pretentious airs that they are engaging in erudite refutations of the scientist without ever having a clue about what the scientist is saying.

    Edited to fix url. Twice.

    I suspect there is some validity to Mike Elzinga's view.  However, one thing I observed when I used to read UD was that they always allow one or two reality-based commenters to keep the volume up.

    I doubt that this is a deliberate choice on the part of the moderators since that would require a level of intelligence they haven't demonstrated otherwise.  I suspect this simply evolved (irony intended) as they found that allowing too many such participants made it impossible for even the regulars to ignore how badly the ID arguments were being demolished, but having too few was equally damaging to their cause as it gave kairosfocus, bornagain77, et al. time to really bring their irrational, ignorant, anti-science rhetorical stew to a rolling boil.

    If any rational socks appear, Nick's days will be numbered.

    Date: 2013/03/04 10:13:37, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 04 2013,09:55)
    I've found that regular old creationists, whether they be YEC tards or IDiot tards, just don't get me off like they used to do.

    But, man.

    Vegans do.  Most internet vegans make liberal (and shitty) use of The Argument Regarding Design in their justification for being vegan.

    And they have (on average) very different politics from the creationists I have been dealing with.  It is very entertaining to wrestle these pigs.

    I bring this up because they routinely claim that all humans and human ancestors were actually herbivores or frugivores or breatharians or something equally hilarious

    And one tard in particular told me that Lucy was vegan.

    I was astounded.  I linked him the Nature paper that presented some reasonable evidence of tool use and meat eating associated with Australopithecus afarensis.  

    Tard said "Well, her species ate meat but Lucy herself was vegan"

    spaghetti everywhere

    "Vegetarians, and their Hezbollah-like splinter-faction, the vegans, are a persistent irritant to any chef worth a damn.

    To me, life without veal stock, pork fat, sausage, organ meat, demi-glace, or even stinky cheese is a life not worth living.

    Vegetarians are the enemy of everything good and decent in the human spirit, an affront to all I stand for, the pure enjoyment of food."

    -- Anthony Bourdain

    Date: 2013/03/10 21:22:47, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 10 2013,18:16)
    Whatever happened to Gil Dodgen?  He hasn't been on UD since July 7th of last year.

     
    Quote (REC @ Mar. 10 2013,19:12)
    Sal Cordova, Jonathan M(cLatchie), and Johnny B(artlett) also seem absent.

    We're in the KF era now. I'm just waiting for Joe to get original post privileges.

    You two strike me as the type who ignore the warnings of all the natives, break into the heavily protected ancient tomb, and read the inscriptions on the walls out loud.

    Then you're surprised when the sarcophagi start to open....

    Date: 2013/03/10 22:14:19, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 10 2013,23:07)
     
    Quote
    You two strike me as the type who ignore the warnings of all the natives, break into the heavily protected ancient tomb, and read the inscriptions on the walls out loud.

    Then you're surprised when the sarcophagi start to open....

    That sounds like an opening scene for a movie - maybe either Indiana Jones or Laura Croft! :p

    I'm thinking more like:

    Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtan.

    Ia! Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!

    Cthulhu R'lyeh fhtagn!


    Then all the named IDists return.



    Date: 2013/03/19 10:33:55, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 19 2013,11:02)
         
    Quote
    Readers may be surprised to learn that Nilsson and Pelger deliberately selected each of the 1,829 steps in their model leading from a light-sensitive spot to a camera-type vertebrate eye, by choosing which features they wanted to vary at every step along the way. That makes their model intelligently designed.

    Who'd have thunk that models are designed ...

    I'll have to go back and re-read the paper to refresh my memory, but didn't the authors use a fairly standard GA with a fitness function based on optics and physics?  Is this some Torley-specific meaning of "deliberately selected" with which I am unfamiliar?

    Date: 2013/03/19 11:02:06, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 19 2013,11:47)
    Quote (Patrick @ Mar. 19 2013,10:33)
     
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 19 2013,11:02)
           
    Quote
    Readers may be surprised to learn that Nilsson and Pelger deliberately selected each of the 1,829 steps in their model leading from a light-sensitive spot to a camera-type vertebrate eye, by choosing which features they wanted to vary at every step along the way. That makes their model intelligently designed.

    Who'd have thunk that models are designed ...

    I'll have to go back and re-read the paper to refresh my memory, but didn't the authors use a fairly standard GA with a fitness function based on optics and physics?  Is this some Torley-specific meaning of "deliberately selected" with which I am unfamiliar?

    No. It was largely qualitative. They found a selectable pathway, assuming morphological distortions of no more than 1%. That doesn't mean nature chose this particular path—it most likely didn't, and there are probably a huge number of possible pathways—, but it does show that at least one such path is available.

    There are no barriers, no islands of non-function, separating the light-spot and the camera eye.

    My mistake.  I somehow remembered there being a simulation involved.

    Date: 2013/03/25 15:39:54, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 25 2013,16:02)
    This ought to be good:
    "Why Up When Down is Just As Good And A Lot Easier?"
    It will be a discussion between Neil Rickert and UD commenter Phinehas who asked:
     
    Quote
    Surely Mt. Improbable has man near its peak and bacteria near its base. But by what metric is man more successful at reproducing than bacteria?


    Read the whole post, it shows how Phinehas - who seems to be a decent person - didn't understand anything about evolution. Will he be open to evidence?

    I'm not going to give UD any traffic, but perhaps someone could recommend that Phinehas actually read "Climbing Mount Improbable" before using the metaphor.

    Date: 2013/04/01 08:36:07, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Driver @ Mar. 31 2013,10:38)
    Or just ask him about magenta.


    Magenta is quite underrated.

    Date: 2013/04/02 10:20:29, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (damitall @ April 02 2013,11:01)
    It's not often one sees so much manufactured outrage in a single post, even one from Gordon Eliot Mullings.

    Did someone kick the nuke tripwire, or something?

    And why the blue blazes is he complaining about"outing"?

    . . .

    kairosfocus has a strong ethical stance against outing.  So strong, in fact, that he roundly chastised vjtorley on UD when vjtorley outed Mathgrrl.

    Oh, wait, that didn't happen.  kairosfocus is just another UD hypocrite.

    Date: 2013/04/03 15:19:29, Link
    Author: Patrick
    JoeG isn't content with spewing all over UD and has reached out to at least one other blog where he loses a $10,000 bet based on his (lack of) understanding of objective hierarchies.

    I'm sure he'll be sending that cash to the winner promptly.

    Date: 2013/04/03 15:51:43, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 03 2013,16:33)
    Hi Patrick and midwifetoad, you guys have both been ninja'ed on the Tardgasm thread.

    edited for clarification

    There are other threads?

    Date: 2013/04/03 16:57:34, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (midwifetoad @ April 03 2013,17:45)
    Sorry for being dumb, but I missed the part where I was ninja'ed.

    That's how good a ninja it was.  Don't turn your head too fast....

    Date: 2013/04/05 11:49:22, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Driver @ April 05 2013,11:39)
    Quote (Robin @ April 05 2013,16:04)
     
    Quote (Driver @ April 05 2013,08:36)
    I've just read that Comprehensibility of the World post. How moronic. Another idiot who reveres the trinity: Jesus, Plato and CS Lewis.

    I always thought that the Trinity was Paul (the father of apologetics), CS Lewis (the son who popularized apologetics), and GK Chesterton (the spirit of apologetics), in that order.

    Heretic!








    (Although yours is a lot neater)



    Indeed.

    Date: 2013/04/05 23:08:47, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Driver @ April 05 2013,19:52)
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 06 2013,00:49)
    It's a 'shopped tick.

    Hairy tick. Agh!

    And here I thought that was too lowbrow for this crowd.

    Date: 2013/04/08 07:40:43, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (J-Dog @ April 07 2013,19:47)
    Quote (Lou FCD @ April 07 2013,16:06)
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 06 2013,15:01)
    I think the collaboration between Joe Gallien and Gordon Elliot Mullings is developping nicely.




    Done.

    Geez... I don't want to sopund sexisty, but thems sure nice gams on that Gordon Elliot Mullings!

    You should forward that compliment to him along with a copy of the image and ask for a autograph.  If you're very lucky, maybe he'll be willing to sell you the stockings he's wearing.

    Date: 2013/04/10 13:03:57, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 10 2013,13:09)
    Bully Bannington has evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a hoax because:

    1) this winter was long and cold
    2) Fox News said so.

    All science so far.

    Climate change is on topic for a blog ostensibly about intelligent design creationism how exactly?

    Date: 2013/04/13 15:03:38, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 13 2013,14:27)
     
    Quote (REC @ April 13 2013,17:38)
    PaV (in an increasingly bizarre attempt to prove ???) shows us some of that legendary UD honesty:

       
    Quote
    In general they proved that, all things being equal (ceteris paribus), in the limits of those assumptions evolution does not happen. Yes, they proved that evolution does not happen.

    PaV

       
    Quote
    In general they proved that, all things being equal (ceteris paribus), in the limits of those assumptions evolution does not happen. Yes, they proved that evolution does not happen. The fact is, however, that things do not remain equal. In other words, it has been consistently shown with vast amounts of evidence and scientific data that those assumptions almost never hold. They may only in a rare circumstance and then it is only for a very short period. Variations occur.

    Source

    Nice move to forget to link to your source, PAV. And it must feel good to know that at UD, comments which try to correct you will never see the light of day.

    Will this quotemine be re-used by other UDiots? Time will tell.

    I'm sure that PaV will treat your response with as much respect as he has shown women in the past.  "Go away, little girl."

    Date: 2013/04/14 16:42:48, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (midwifetoad @ April 14 2013,15:47)
    Quote
    Gregory:

    A quiet, sad note.

    For cause, you do not have the trust of this thread owner, and so any further posts in Russian — I believe — or another language will be deleted. (And no, no stories that the post is harmless will be good enough. The danger is plain and no precedent will be set.)

    I only let what is above stand, as this is documentation of a problem.

    Please understand the problem, given the amount of abusive behaviour in and around the Internet regarding the design issue.

    KF

    So will kairosfocus start posting in something resembling English now?

    (No, kairosfocus, your pidgin of Bloviatin and Spewish does not count.)

    Date: 2013/04/21 11:23:40, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Febble @ April 21 2013,04:08)
    Quote (Kantian Naturalist @ April 20 2013,16:25)
    A few of you had said that you're enjoyed what I was contributing to Uncommon Descent, so I feel some small obligation to let you know that I just can't do it anymore.  When I saw that Arrington has basically 'called me out', it struck me just how much of a bully he is.  I don't like bullies, I certainly don't respect them, and I don't want to feed his ego by giving him any attention.  And I don't like what's happening to me through my participation in Uncommon Descent.  It's not just mere stupidity or foolishness, but something much more pathological, and psychopathologies are communicable diseases, contracted by communicating.  So for the sake of my own basic psychic hygiene, I'm withdrawing from my involvement there.   They'll need to find someone else to pick on.

    Yes, he is a bully.

    I do hope you will continue to post at TSZ, though.  I've got lots of questions to ask you!

    ETA: I'm Lizzie.

    I disagree.  Barry Arrington aspires to be a bully because he is so small minded that he finds such behavior to be synonymous with strength.  In fact, he lacks even the minimal intellectual or physical courage to achieve that stunted goal.

    Based on his behavior at UD, Barry Arrington is nothing more than a coward and a fool, proud of being willfully ignorant.  We shouldn't feed his pathetic ego by suggesting that he rises to the level of bully.

    Date: 2013/04/21 11:47:57, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Even Barry says he isn't a bully -- and it hurts his feelings to the tune of $10,000 when anyone calls him that.

    Date: 2013/04/22 10:16:01, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (damitall @ April 22 2013,07:26)
    I am much comforted by the fact that ID supporters seem to fall into 3 groups:

    The spittle-flecked ranters and would-be bullies, like Arrington and Mullings; the terminally supercilious, like Torley, Murray, and Gregory, and the profoundly ignorant and rude like JoeG and Mung.

    None of these is attractive to those they would wish to attract

    Where does bornagain77 fit into your taxonomy?

    Date: 2013/04/23 22:00:03, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 23 2013,10:24)
    Gordon Elliot Mullings is hogging UD since he got posting privileges; I think he has outmanoeuvered Barry Arrington - the bully - in the course of the last weeks.

    If we must assign Barry a sobriquet, might I suggest something more appropriate:



    (Only to be used in a non-gender-specific demeaning fashion, of course.)

    Date: 2013/04/25 13:40:12, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 25 2013,14:25)

    Barry Arrington is a bitch.


    This is one of many reasons why I like redheads.

    Date: 2013/05/07 14:14:17, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (midwifetoad @ May 07 2013,15:00)
    Quote (Richardthughes @ May 07 2013,11:29)
    KF is linking to "the Newtonian uniformity principle". Of course he's linking to his own blog. Do real scientists use this phrase? Let's find out:

    Google search

    There's this. Not sure it helps KF.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......formity

    What might help kairosfocus?

    Date: 2013/05/15 10:34:36, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Richardthughes @ May 15 2013,11:26)
    Quote (timothya @ May 15 2013,06:11)
    KF has posted another of his summaries at UD, in which appears a set of questions that he has designed to uncover whether you (yes, you materialists; we now who you are) are psychotic, Machiavellian or narcissistic (or some combination of these maladies). Here are his questions:

    1] Your empirically grounded evidence that blind chance and mechanical necessity are plausibly adequate to form a life friendly cosmos, trigger OOL and then body plans (including our own with the crucial linguistic ability) is:  ?

    3] Your adequate reason for dismissing the reality of God . . .  is: _ ? [Cf. here.]

    4] In that context [of evident evolutionary materialism], your grounding of the credibility of the human ability to reason and know (note here onlookers) is: _, and it is best warranted as  ?

    Your task, should you choose to accept it, is to:
    1. treat KF's questions as rational propositions, and to provide rational answers
    2. explain why any of his questions are irrational
    3. propose alternative questions that address the underlying epistemic problems correctly

    And, by the way, Moldova is going to win the Eurovision Song Contest this weekend. Go Moldova! Power ballads rule! Iceland will go down!!!!

    This post will self-destruct in polynomial time.

    Why would we post at UD, where the American Taliban routinely delete content they find challenging / objectionable?

    If he wants an open dialogue, he must come to an open and free venue: HERE.

    But, but, but . . . there are bad people here who say mean, nasty, ugly things, unlike UD where commenters like Joe keep the discourse oh so civil.

    Date: 2013/05/17 15:14:49, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (The whole truth @ May 17 2013,14:22)
    Quote (Febble @ May 17 2013,05:51)
     
    Quote (The whole truth @ May 17 2013,07:02)
    Elizabeth, I want to think about what you've said. I'll get back to you later.

    No problem :)

    And in the mean time, I see I have provoked another Joe G meltdown on UD :)

    Maybe "meltdown" should have an entry in DSM VI?

    Yeah, the only description needed would be a few selected comments of joey's, or just a link to his blog. Too bad it's too late to get it into DSM-5. ;)

    That's a good example of why diagnosing psychiatric disorders based on behavior on the 'net is probably not possible.  I can't imagine that Joe behaves the same way offline as he does online.  If he did, he'd spend most of his time in the hospital.

    Then again, he does seem to have a lot of time on his hands....

    Date: 2013/05/17 18:42:36, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Febble @ May 17 2013,18:06)
    I've also seen some really good science from people who were mentally ill.

    In fact I'm not sure I've met a scientist who was entirely sane.  
    And as for mathematicians...

    Mathematicians and chemists.  At least the chemists have the excuse of breathing noxious fumes on a regular basis.

    Date: 2013/05/18 08:28:24, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (timothya @ May 18 2013,05:13)
    KF included this in one of his comments at UD:
     
    Quote
    FSCO/I is a good example, such as is manifest in this post.

    I couldn't agree more.

    So FSCO/I is a measure of how much willful ignorance of science can be combined with supercilious pretension and faux pearl clutching in a single comment?  Why not just call it the Bloviation Quotient (BQ) and save a few letters?

    Date: 2013/05/18 12:06:29, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Bob O'H @ May 18 2013,11:54)
    Oh, and someone, claiming psychiatric knowledge, once argued that my wife shouldn't win a cruise to Antarctica, because she was bipolar . . . .

    He wanted someone who had never seen either pole to have a chance?

    Date: 2013/05/19 09:31:26, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Richardthughes @ May 18 2013,16:32)
    batshit^77 is calling out Sal over at UD, much to my amusement.

    Like watching two bullies fighting, it doesn't matter who wins as long as it is protracted and bloody.

    Date: 2013/05/25 16:36:54, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (The whole truth @ May 25 2013,15:14)
    Quote (Arctodus23 @ May 25 2013,11:57)
    On the same site, it had an article on same-sex marriage. It turns out, that Minnesoda Minnesota, has legalized same sex, marriage.

    And gordo is surely having a major fit of the vapors over it.

    It looks like marriage equality will be the law in the United Kingdom by the end of the year.  I wonder if that will cover Montserrat as well.

    Date: 2013/05/26 10:57:24, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Richardthughes @ May 25 2013,19:26)
    Quote (Febble @ May 25 2013,05:48)
    Looks like he got an MS, and learned that YEC is probably not correct.

    Cool.

    Actually, he's still a slimey shitbag . . . .

    Points for alliteration, but you're going to have to work to beat ERV's cool, rational analysis of Sal's character:
    Quote
    You. You Sal Cordova. You cottage cheese dripping pussy.

    Date: 2013/05/27 11:32:56, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Driver @ May 26 2013,20:05)
    Quote (Patrick @ May 26 2013,16:57)
    Quote (Richardthughes @ May 25 2013,19:26)
     
    Quote (Febble @ May 25 2013,05:48)
    Looks like he got an MS, and learned that YEC is probably not correct.

    Cool.

    Actually, he's still a slimey shitbag . . . .

    Points for alliteration, but you're going to have to work to beat ERV's cool, rational analysis of Sal's character:
     
    Quote
    You. You Sal Cordova. You cottage cheese dripping pussy.

    Least likely to be mistaken for a feminist.

    I strongly suspect that ERV is a feminist.  Or were you referring to Sal?

    Date: 2013/05/28 19:39:25, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Ptaylor @ May 28 2013,19:53)
    Barry is doing Logic again, deciding what other people think, then Judging them for it. After musing that eyes and brains could be considered analogous to cameras and computers he says:
     
    Quote
    The question in the title of this post is:  “If my eyes are a window, is there anyone looking out?”  The materialist must answer this question “no.”  That the materialist must give an obviously false answer to this question is a devastating rebuke to materialism.

    and:
     
    Quote
    Materialists are obliged to believe that every aspect of human behavior is determined – that it was selected for by evolutionary processes.  Materialists are, therefore, obliged to believe that humor conferred on humans some reproductive advantage that was selected for by natural selection.  Blithering nonsense

    I guess Barry would consider me a materialist*, but somehow I don't think the things he tells me to.

    *What exactly is a materialist in the UD mindset? Is it simply someone who does not accept Jesus as their saviour?

    Someone with no invisible means of support. -- John Buchan

    Date: 2013/05/30 10:45:53, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Driver @ May 29 2013,21:56)
    Quote (Patrick @ May 27 2013,17:32)
     
    Quote (Driver @ May 26 2013,20:05)
     
    Quote (Patrick @ May 26 2013,16:57)
       
    Quote (Richardthughes @ May 25 2013,19:26)
         
    Quote (Febble @ May 25 2013,05:48)
    Looks like he got an MS, and learned that YEC is probably not correct.

    Cool.

    Actually, he's still a slimey shitbag . . . .

    Points for alliteration, but you're going to have to work to beat ERV's cool, rational analysis of Sal's character:
         
    Quote
    You. You Sal Cordova. You cottage cheese dripping pussy.

    Least likely to be mistaken for a feminist.

    I strongly suspect that ERV is a feminist.  

    Her imagery here is not the most woman positive.

    I can empathize with the argument against using gender-specific terms as insults, but not being endowed with said organ, I asked my wife and daughters for their views.

    Interestingly, they all found it amusing.  My wife could be an outlier, though, since she's been known to call me that name while spotting for me in the gym when she thinks I'm not making enough effort on a rep.  Both she and one of my daughters said it would be much more offensive to them if ERV had said Sal was acting like a "girl" or "woman".

    Ultimately it seems to depend on what woman one asks.  Oddly, I'm much less likely to use that term derogatorily than either my wife or my daughters.

    And with that off-topic note, I'll leave you with the wisest words I've heard on this issue:

    Date: 2013/06/06 17:43:00, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Woodbine @ June 06 2013,17:04)
    Volcano's probably rumbling and he's busy flagellating himself in an attempt to appease the sulphurous beast.

    Or looking for a virgin to toss in.

    Date: 2013/06/06 21:22:32, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Doc Bill @ June 06 2013,19:16)
    Quote (Patrick @ June 06 2013,17:43)
    Quote (Woodbine @ June 06 2013,17:04)
    Volcano's probably rumbling and he's busy flagellating himself in an attempt to appease the sulphurous beast.

    Or looking for a virgin to toss in.

    Somebody has to say it.

    We all know who the 63-year old virgin is, don't we?

    Any takers?  Louis?

    I was thinking more in terms of how kairosfocus would explain his wandering the less salubrious areas of Montserrat with garden hose in hand to his wife.

    Date: 2013/06/16 10:16:55, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (DiEb @ June 15 2013,01:44)
    This must be one of my more inflammatory comments at UD - I put it on Download the Cornell papers free here: at June 13, 2013 at 3:12 pm and on Download Cornell papers on origin of biological information free at June 14, 2013 at 1:44 pm, and it is still in moderation:    
    Quote
    In the interest of discussing the data and the evidence, could we have posts on various articles of the book? I’d be quite interested in a thread on Chapter 1.1.2 “A General Theory of Information Cost Incurred by Successful Search” by William A. Dembski, Winston Ewert and Robert J. Marks II.

    I hope that the authors are still reading this blog: this way, we could have a productive discussion, and perhaps some questions could be answered by the people involved!

    And for the sake of a swift exchange of ideas: could someone please release me from the moderation queue?

    I suspect they'll release you from moderation about the same time that they open up a thread to discuss the ethics of insinuating that their "conference" was sponsored by Cornell when, in fact, they merely rented a room from the School of Hotel Administration.

    For people who claim their morality comes from a higher power, they're pretty damn sleazy.

    Date: 2013/06/19 12:53:56, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (JohnW @ June 19 2013,13:00)
    It walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck.  It doesn't have to run up to you and say "Hello!  I'm a duck."

    Because that would be very unducklike behavior.

    Date: 2013/06/20 07:33:14, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Henry J @ June 19 2013,23:02)
    Quote (Patrick @ June 19 2013,11:53)
    Quote (JohnW @ June 19 2013,13:00)
    It walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck.  It doesn't have to run up to you and say "Hello!  I'm a duck."

    Because that would be very unducklike behavior.

    Yeah, that would be Daffy!

    I was waiting for someone to say it would be Fup'd.

    Date: 2013/07/02 11:53:48, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (keiths @ July 01 2013,17:43)
    Things are hopping at UD, now that critics aren't being censored (well, except by that pusillanimous hypocrite KF).

    Let's see how long it lasts.

    Damn it all to hell, that place was finally dying with the denizens starting to feed on each other.  Why in Eris' name would anyone add to their page hits after the last Great Banning?

    UD does not deserve your input.

    Date: 2013/07/02 12:13:54, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 02 2013,12:59)
    Quote (Patrick @ July 02 2013,12:53)
     
    Quote (keiths @ July 01 2013,17:43)
    Things are hopping at UD, now that critics aren't being censored (well, except by that pusillanimous hypocrite KF).

    Let's see how long it lasts.

    Damn it all to hell, that place was finally dying with the denizens starting to feed on each other.  Why in Eris' name would anyone add to their page hits after the last Great Banning?

    UD does not deserve your input.

    keiths is a tardaholic

    Ah, now I feel bad for yelling at someone with an illness.

    Have you considered trying heroin to wean yourself off UD, Keith?



    Date: 2013/07/02 13:51:45, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (keiths @ July 02 2013,14:02)
    Quote (Patrick @ July 02 2013,09:53)
     
    Quote (keiths @ July 01 2013,17:43)
    Things are hopping at UD, now that critics aren't being censored (well, except by that pusillanimous hypocrite KF).

    Let's see how long it lasts.

    Damn it all to hell, that place was finally dying with the denizens starting to feed on each other.  Why in Eris' name would anyone add to their page hits after the last Great Banning?

    UD does not deserve your input.

    So you're a book burner like Matzke, trying to shut down UD and suppress free speech?

    For shame!  Please do better.

    END

    I was hoping that when the echoes got too loud, they might venture out to play.  When they have a little reality-based input, they can ignore their sectarian differences and pretend to like each other.

    Date: 2013/07/04 12:09:39, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (REC @ July 04 2013,10:48)
    A note on Barry and free speech on the 4th:

    Apparently Nick using his voice to criticize a private publisher, who then made a decision Barry disagrees with, is tantamount to Nazi book burning and concentration camps.

    On the other hand (according to Barry's court filing), stealing a gay couple's copyrighted wedding photo and using it in an anti-gay political campaign, well, that's American. Privacy? meh. Copyright? meh. Their emotional distress? nah.

    Because:

    1)If you are a symbol of something someone detests you can forget about privacy, copyright, etc ... "It is also not about Plaintiffs' privacy interest in the photograph, because they had no such interest. No, this case has nothing to do with the claims that Plaintiffs assert. This case is about one and only one thing: the politics of same-sex unions. Public Advocate used the photograph as a symbol for same-sex unions."

    2) The Supreme Court ruled Westboro Baptist can be hateful on matters of public concern, so if Barry makes your wedding a public symbol, despite the emotional distress it may cause you, it is covered: "The court held that the Westboro Baptist Church members' speech was in fact on matters if public concern and therefore completely protected by the First Amendment."

    I tend towards very open speech--but turning someone's private wedding photo into something hateful because they can be made into a symbol of something you detest seems excessive.

    Court filings, including pictures:
    http://images.coloradoindependent.com/arringt....ton.pdf
    http://www.fkks.com/blog.......int.pdf

    IANAL (although I do have a few buried in shallow graves up in the back forty), but what I get from the filing is that the homophobes are asserting that they have a first amendment right to use copyrighted material for purposes offensive to the copyright holders and that the copyright holders can't legally prevent them from doing so unless the copyright holders have a non-political reason for doing so.  Is that close?

    I used to think that the world would be a better place if religion faded away.  Seeing how these god botherers behave when they think they face the threat of eternal punishment has made me reconsider that.  The consequences would be very bad if such moral midgets were unconstrained by even their absurd beliefs.

    Date: 2013/07/15 17:53:09, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (dvunkannon @ July 15 2013,15:09)
    OK, I know I've been away too long, getting my TARD jollies from WUWT and Steve Goddard's Real Science (sic) blog. Now I come back to UD and see Febble and Mark Frank posting there? WTF? What happened to the great purge based on the Law of Non-Contradiction? Are we all welcome again in the hope for more traffic? Should I dust off my Nakashima suit?

    They're evolving.

    Too few reality-based participants and the true believers start mistaking the echoes in the chamber for the voices in their heads.  The unholy alliances start to form and you never know who's lips will be attached to which buttocks.

    Too many rational participants and the regulars start getting said buttocks handed to them far too often.

    Purge and relax, purge and relax, until the feedback loop converges on just the right amount of outside input.

    I still say screw the lid on tight and watch them eat their young.

    Date: 2013/07/16 10:18:35, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (CeilingCat @ July 16 2013,03:43)
    This is dumber than Gill.  
    Quote
    Genetic algorithms are put forward as evidence for Darwinian evolution. But for Genetic Algorithms to create novel designs, consider that at a bare minimum one needs electricity, transformers, transistors, VLSI circuits, chip makers, computer factories, computers, memory banks, operating systems, machine language, assembly language, compilers or interpreters, compilable and semantically sensible programs to implement the Genetic Algorithm, etc. Genetic algorithms are trivial in complexity compared to the collective societal complexity required to make the computer genetic algorithm possible in the first place. For genetic algorithms to work in human affairs, they need intelligence, hence GAs are anything but evidence of blind mindless processes.


    From the The Blind Watchbreaker would dispose of lunches even if they were free — mootness of anti-NFL arguments thread.  The URL is too much for an iPad's tiny little brain to imbed.

    One common characteristic of intelligent design creationists is the inability to think at different levels of abstraction, leading them to mistake the map for the territory in cases like this.

    Date: 2013/07/17 09:07:01, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (keiths @ July 17 2013,05:28)
    Batshit77 is begging Barry to swing the ban hammer:
    Quote
    Perhaps its time for Mr. Arrington to clean house with LNC once again?

    "We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still."  ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

    When you want to know who lacks support for their position, look for the person calling for censorship.

    The intelligent design creationists have many character flaws, but this disdain for freedom of expression is among the most offensive.

    Date: 2013/07/17 21:22:19, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Driver @ July 17 2013,21:05)
    Gordon at his most cowardly.

    Quote
    This is for the record, that it may stand in witness regarding what has been going on for far too long and in the name of all that is decent, must now stop. END


    As much as I abhor violence, I really would love to slap him hard about the face with a herring.

    I'm afraid I'm less enlightened.  I'd like to see him soaked in oil of ad hominem and chased about by the children of Montserrat waving sparklers.

    Date: 2013/07/18 09:38:16, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (KevinB @ July 18 2013,07:36)
    Quote (Patrick @ July 17 2013,21:22)
    Quote (Driver @ July 17 2013,21:05)
    Gordon at his most cowardly.

     
    Quote
    This is for the record, that it may stand in witness regarding what has been going on for far too long and in the name of all that is decent, must now stop. END


    As much as I abhor violence, I really would love to slap him hard about the face with a herring.

    I'm afraid I'm less enlightened.  I'd like to see him soaked in oil of ad hominem and chased about by the children of Montserrat waving sparklers.

    You're not sufficiently ambitious. Why not try planting the idea that he'd be ideal for appeasing the volcano god.

    Thanks for ruining my "rescue the beautiful girl about to be sacrificed to the volcano god" fantasy forever.

    Date: 2013/07/18 14:33:55, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (keiths @ July 18 2013,15:00)
    Hey JWTruthInLove,

    In contrast to UD, we welcome dissenters here at AtBC and at The Skeptical Zone.

    You and vividbleau are welcome to post your questions at either place.

    Yeah, but Lizzie makes us be nice at her place.  If JWTruthInLove isn't a coward he'll come here.

    (Edited to correct IDCist's name.)



    Date: 2013/07/19 10:25:59, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Febble @ July 19 2013,08:35)
    There seems to be a current attempt from several quarters to imply that TSZ censors posts, or that banning for posting porn links is somehow equivalent to banning for posting a dissenting view.

    Or even equivalent to banning for incivility.

    And if that doesn't stick, there's KF's slander complaint, for which, in comparison, there are massive equivalent, and with knobs on, counterparts at UD, many of them in KF's own posts.

    Let's compare the two, shall we?

    All of the posts that have been considered off-topic or in violation of forum rules at The Skeptical Zone are still visible here:  http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?page_id=57

    Where might one view the comments that have been removed at Uncommon Descent?

    Only one person has been banned at The Skeptical Zone.  The reason (posting an image entitled "nasty v*****") and the banning were publicly announced.

    Where is the list of people banned at Uncommon Descent?  What specific site rules did each break?

    If kairosfocus really wanted a forum for rational, polite discussion, he could do far worse than TSZ.  In fact, he has.

    Date: 2013/07/19 13:03:55, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Woodbine @ July 19 2013,12:41)
    Quote (Febble @ July 19 2013,16:50)
    I think that KF genuinely doesn't get it.  He doesn't understand why his long posts don't instantly inform anyone who reads them as to the error of their ways.  He doesn't understand why his reasons for objecting to homosexuality do not deserve exemption from criticism.

    He doesn't understand why anyone could think differently from the way he does, if they have read his posts and are apparently smart enough to be able to understand them, unless they are being deliberately dishonest.

    He has boxed himself into a corner from which there is no escape: any possible evidence against his opinion comes from sources he does not trust.

    Once you have got yourself into a position in which there is no possible evidence you would accept as a rebuttal to your opinion, you are in a Black Hole from which no light can escape, and you will post only Hawking radiation until you are gone.

    He's a petty, autocratic, fundamentalist, windbag living under the shadow of a giant volcano.

    Whichever way you look at it he's fucked.

    Fortunately, he's being supported by Lizzie's tax dollars!  You'd think he'd be nicer to her.

    I wonder if he encourages the government of Montserrat to return the portion of UK aid paid for by homosexuals.

    Date: 2013/07/20 10:24:19, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Driver @ July 20 2013,04:01)
    Oh, then, Patrick - please don't censor vagina!

    I'm a big fan of vaginas, which is why I blocked out part of the word when it was associated with the word "nasty".  Vaginas deserve better company.

    Sorry for the confusion.

    Date: 2013/07/21 14:00:57, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 21 2013,13:20)
    Quote (Glen Davidson @ July 21 2013,11:02)
       
    Quote
    How can we assert the great American novel The Right Stuff has near 100% sequence similarity with Mirriam Webster’s Dictionary? Simple, take the words in the dictionary and find identical words in the novel, and you’ll find the spelling is 100% identical in most cases! Would you then use such an illegitimate method to argue humans share a close genetic identity with fish.


    Yeah, by that sort of reasoning you'd claim that the dictionary and the novel were derived from a common language or something.

    Those Darwinists!

    Glen Davidson

    I still wonder if Slimy Sal has his sights set on Gerbil Luskin's job as Minister For Propaganda at the Disco 'tute?

    I suspect you're right.  Not exactly shooting for the stars.

    Date: 2013/08/07 08:16:18, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 06 2013,17:40)
    The whole Mathgrrl episode appears to have been weighing heavily on PaV's mind. After almost 18 months since the most recent comment he turned up on one of those threads yesterday reminding us that he was quite justified in telling "“MathGrrl” to just “go away.”" of his character flaws. Sample:
         
    Quote
    It has been more than two years since this post began.

    We’ve learned, subsequently, just as I suspected, that MathGrrl is really not a “girl”, and that it was a person whose sole person was to work to undermine the ID position.

    This was obvious from the beginning, and was the reason I thought Denise was wrong in allowing this post, and the reason I told so-called “MathGrrl” to just “go away.”

    Psst - PaV - it was "Go away little girl" - remember?
    UD link

    Online blustering misogynists are almost as much fun as Internet tough guys threatening "bloody war" from the safety of their parking lots.

    For the record, my Mathgrrl's purpose wasn't to undermine ID, just to point out that the intelligent design creationists are doing that just fine themselves.

    Date: 2013/08/15 08:20:59, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Driver @ Aug. 15 2013,08:33)
     
    Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 15 2013,09:36)
    Of course it's not all right to have sex with a woman who is too drunk to give informed consent.

    It is also perfectly legal to stroll down any street in any neighborhood on any Saturday night.

    There are laws and there are rules of decency. There's also common sense.

    I asked my wife about this. Her question was what did she expect? If the accusation is true then Shermer is a pig,  but it's not surprising  that such men exist. A good chunk of literature is devoted to what happens when you mix men,  women and alcohol.

    Edit to add:
    I'm not blaming the victim, but I think it's fair to point out that bad people exist; preditors are over-represented among alpha males and celebrities; this is well known and frequently in the news; and finally, it is possible for a bad person and a foolish person to occupy the same room at the same time.

    What you are saying is that men can party but women can't. This is not the right way to go about things.


    No, he's making the point that, while burglars are responsible for robberies, leaving your doors unlocked is still unwise.

     
    Quote
    This is not about being alone on a street. We are talking about TAM, Skepticon etc.

    Allegedly about those conferences.  Thus far no evidence has been presented.

     
    Quote
    Anyway, the anecdote related was not about getting deliberately blind drunk. It's not that hard to get someone more drunk than they intended when they have had a couple of glasses, especially if you have the status advantage.

    Which is why it is important to know your limits and your intentions before deliberately impairing your own judgement.

    Note that I am not blaming the victim of non-consensual sex.  If someone commits that crime, they should be punished severely.  This is advice for avoiding the situation in the first place.  In an ideal world, there would be no risk of that happening.  We don't live in that world.
    Quote
    But most important of all, a victim's choices are NOT the point. To see this, think of anyone who commented on a murder or non-sexual assault charge with criticism of the victim's intoxication level. Irrelevant victim blaming isn't it?

    Dalton's segment was highly inappropriate.

    You are ignoring Dalton's other key point.  PZ Myers publicly accused Michael Shermer of rape based on second or third hand hearsay.  Myer's blog is popular enough that this accusation will be returned in Google searches for Shermer.  This kind of accusation is legally defamation per se.

    Dalton is noting that the so-called skeptics at Pharyngula are accepting those claims without any evidence.

    Date: 2013/08/15 13:45:52, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ Aug. 15 2013,11:27)
    On the Bathroom Wall, cubist posted a link to Greta Christina's blog entry in which she discusses the situation.

    I know you will eat me alive, but for once, I think she's 100% right.

    I agree with her that reporting rape stigmatizes the victim.  That needs to change.

    I don't believe she refutes the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" response (which I haven't actually read anyone use in this case).  While sexual assault is unfortunately common, sexual assault by a particular male is not.

    And while I might even give some credibility to her multiple witnesses argument, all of the "witnesses" are anonymous in this case.

    PZ screwed up.

    Date: 2013/08/16 08:27:38, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Driver @ Aug. 16 2013,05:19)
    Whenever it comes to any other type of assault, people's first response is not to speculate on what the victim might have done to facilitate the attack. Think about that. We don't do this for any other crime, I don't think, let alone assault.


    There are public service announcements here on the east coast warning people not to leave their cars unlocked or the keys in them.

    When my teenagers go into the city, both their mother and I give them (no doubt too long) lectures about how to take responsibility for their own safety.

    This is not specific to any particular type of crime.

    Quote
    Myers' source is not hearsay, this is corroborated testimony by women he knows personally. Now you can argue that to us it is hearsay, but... really? PZ Myers is making it up? Do you really believe that?


    There's no way of knowing that.  Some of the material quoted in the cease and desist letter suggests that Myers got the information from a friend-of-a-friend, other statements suggest it was from someone he knows personally.  In either case it is hearsay.

    And while I don't believe that Myers is necessarily making it up out of whole cloth, nothing in his behavior over the past few years suggests to me that he can be trusted not to respond with hyperbole.

    Quote
    This is not completely news about Shermer, btw, and I see no reason to be skeptical about a woman's corroborated claim that she was raped. Most accounts of rape are not lies.


    You are treading dangerously close to libel yourself here.  The issue isn't about "most accounts of rape", it's about posting anonymous defamatory claims in a public forum.

    Quote
    Myers' decision was not about court standards of evidence and conviction, but about warning women to avoid a man who already had some reputation amongst quite a few skeptic conference-attending women as a predator, operating in a world where we have good evidence that a microculture of assault (including rape) and rape apology already exists. See Karen Stollznow and Ashley Paramore.

    Leaving aside whether or not skeptic conferences are more or less safe for women than any other venue, the fact that Myers blog isn't a court of law does not excuse his behavior.  If Shermer really did what was claimed, I'll volunteer to help nail his testicles to a wall.  Until that's proven, though, anonymous hearsay is defamatory libel.

    Do you really want to live under a justice system that allows anyone to be subject to these potentially life-destroying accusations, without evidence or recourse?



    Date: 2013/08/16 08:30:28, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Driver @ Aug. 16 2013,05:31)
    You know what is most wrong about this "if only she had not done X" stuff? It helps perpetuate the perception that women can always avoid rape if they are "sensible". This is patent bullshit.

    It's a good thing no one that I've seen in this discussion is saying that, then.

    There's a difference between "The world can be a dangerous place -- here are some ways to protect yourself." and "Do this or you're responsible for the actions of evil people."

    Date: 2013/08/27 08:33:21, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Driver,

    Please accept my apology for dropping the conversation.  Real life work consumed all my available time over the past two weeks.  If you'd like to continue, just let me know.

    Patrick

    Date: 2013/08/27 08:54:14, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ Aug. 27 2013,08:14)
    Another OP in which someone discusses "If wishes were horses beggars would ride". This time it's niwrad who dreams about converting evilutionists to ID.
       
    Quote
    Hence, technically, to greater reason, “the church of the flying spaghetti monster”, has an ultimate satanic inspiration. Moreover it clearly shows the sign of grotesque, as often satanic productions do. ...

    If a Darwinist convinced by ID risks to fall in an incorrect or malicious conception of the Great Designer, then I go until to say that it is better the atheist evolutionist remains such. Because blasphemy and sacrilege are far worse than simple ignorance and negation. ...

    But let’s consider the serious evolutionists, who have demonstrated their intelligence by recognizing the truth of ID. ... If they abandon materialism to go towards false spiritualism, it would be better for them to remain materialists. ...

    But in my opinion to leave fully undefined the designer, without giving at least an hint about, is not to do a good service to our converted friends evolutionists.


    A necessary warning because until now, nobody at UD has ever mentioned the Christian god.

    Uh-oh! We are in grave danger! :O

    I agree with niwrad.  People who ignore the divine feminine embodied by Shakti cannot experience Shiva's creative abilities.  Such unfortunates risk falling into the trap of one of the misogynistic Abrahamic religions.

    Date: 2013/08/28 13:44:23, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (David Holland @ Aug. 27 2013,17:50)
    This is why Louis left and he ain't coming back.

    Who?  What?

    I seem to be missing some backstory.

    Date: 2013/08/29 21:25:31, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (hotshoe @ Aug. 29 2013,19:48)
    Everyone, men and women, will be more happy when the list is made public.  Everyone, that is, except the named known predator.

    It would indeed be ideal to have such a list, so that sexual predators could be barred altogether.  The problem is with the word I bolded in your final paragraph.

    We do not have knowledge.  We have second or third hand reports from anonymous sources.  We have rumors and gossip.  We have, in some online fora, what looks very like a witch hunt.

    PZ Myers himself recognizes that rape accusations are so serious that they "could have totally destroyed my career."

    As a husband of a wife I adore and the father of daughters I would do anything to protect, I strongly empathize with the desire to do anything possible to prevent sexual assault.

    As a person who values his reputation, I do not want to live under a legal system that would allow that reputation to be destroyed based on anonymous hearsay and unfounded accusations.

    We need a solution that achieves both goals.  What PZ Myers did is not it.

    Date: 2013/08/30 09:47:16, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (hotshoe @ Aug. 30 2013,00:54)
     
    Quote
    It would indeed be ideal to have such a list, so that sexual predators could be barred altogether.  The problem is with the word I bolded in your final paragraph.

    We do not have knowledge.


    That's not quite correct. You maybe don't have knowledge.  True, for you, this is a second-hand report.  But the multiple women whom Shermer preyed upon do know.
    . . .
    You say you do not know; fine, that's true for you if you say so, but the knowledge is definitely available out there.

    Is it available in any form other than rumor and anonymous accusations?  If so, please provide a link to the details.  If not, you are assuming that this hearsay is true, with no supporting evidence.

     
    Quote

     
    Quote

    As a person who values his reputation, I do not want to live under a legal system that would allow that reputation to be destroyed based on anonymous hearsay and unfounded accusations.


    Well, you may not live under such a legal system, but Shermer certainly does.  That's our US First Amendment rights at work!  The alternative is far more horrifying to contemplate: that a public figure (like Shermer) could use the courts to trample on your free speech rights any time you said anything about him that he claimed would harm his "reputation"!  Thank god I live in a country where the Supreme Court has specifically ruled on this issue and is protecting my free speech rights.


    I said that I would not want to live under such a system.  Fortunately, I do not nor does anyone else in the United States.  There is legal recourse available to victims of defamation.

    I am a free speech absolutist.  I would not support any attempt to limit PZ Myers' ability to publish anything he wishes.  I also recognize that such freedom means that people will sometimes cause significant harm to other people's reputations.  If those damaging claims cannot be supported, the libeled or slandered person must have a means to clear their name.

    Would you really prefer a system where your life and livelihood could be destroyed by anonymous rumor and gossip published by any blogger with a sufficiently large following?

    Date: 2013/08/30 09:50:12, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (The whole truth @ Aug. 30 2013,06:37)
    If a man complained of being propositioned or offered coffee by a woman, in an elevator or elsewhere, would any of you jump to his defense and call for special protective measures and public warnings about the woman? Would any of you make a big stink about it on the internet?

    There is a difference.  I'm surprised you haven't learned it by now.

    It's unfortunate that the elevator incident has accumulated so much baggage in the ongoing schism among online atheists and skeptics.  When I first read about it, before the subsequent blog and conference speech drama, I brought it up at breakfast and my wife and I discussed it with our sons.  We communicated three key points to them.  First, that men, on average, have a physical advantage over women.  Second, that because of this disparity the world seen by women is different from that seen by men.  Third, that if one finds oneself about to enter a confined space like an elevator alone with a woman one does not know well, a gentleman will step back and not put the woman in a position where she may feel threatened.

    It was a good teaching opportunity that has spawned many subsequent conversations.

    Date: 2013/08/30 12:46:01, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 30 2013,12:57)
    I think there is no conflict between teaching young men to be gentlemen and teaching young women not to assume that men are gentlemen.

    I strongly concur.  I hope nothing I wrote suggested otherwise.

    Date: 2013/08/30 14:42:02, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (hotshoe @ Aug. 30 2013,14:48)
    Quote
    I also recognize that such freedom means that people will sometimes cause significant harm to other people's reputations. If those damaging claims cannot be supported, the libeled or slandered person must have a means to clear their name.

    Yes, and the legal recourse for the possibly-libeled person is to file suit against their alleged-libeler.  And although the libel suit is a civil action, not a criminal action, in that suit the alleged-libeler, being the defendant, has legal protection equivalent to "presumed innocent until proven guilty".  That is, Shermer - if he follows through on his threat to sue Myers - will have the affirmative burden of proof; and furthermore, since Shermer is a public figure, he will have the burden of proving not only that he was actually defamed (which may be possible to prove in Shermer's specific case) but also must meet the burden of proof that Myers acted with actual malice. (Note: that is "actual malice" as defined by law, not merely out of spite, or as a result of some prior spat between the two parties.)  This is settled constitutional law; it was settled in 1964 by the US Supreme Court.

    I suggest that you look into the legal term "defamation per se."  What PZ Myers claimed qualifies.

    Your (uncited) lawyer quotations fail to note that the public figure requirement to prove actual malice isn't going to help Myers.  First, reckless disregard of the truth shouldn't be too hard to demonstrate, especially given that he has subsequently allowed additional very serious allegations to be made in the comments.

    Second, the requirement applies to actions related to the public figure's official conduct (in his capacity as a public official, in the case you cite).  If Myers were making a defamatory statement about his target's professional conduct, it might be covered.  The actual claims made are not.

    Date: 2013/08/30 14:56:55, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Driver @ Aug. 30 2013,15:21)
     
    Quote (Patrick @ Aug. 30 2013,15:47)
    Would you really prefer a system where your life and livelihood could be destroyed by anonymous rumor and gossip published by any blogger with a sufficiently large following?

    Now why are you calling a specific allegation rumour and gossip? Not only are such words not apposite, but given prior probabilities plus statements from others (including statements by people who are not anonymous, such as former JREF employee Brian Thompson) the odds that the allegation is untrue are far greater than the odds that it is true, and if it is true you have dismissed a rape victim's first hand account as gossip. No-one has provided the key to the conspiracy theory that PZ Myers has made it up.

    I'm referring to it as rumor and gossip because it is an unsubstantiated accusation claimed to be from an anonymous source.  Hardly what could be considered valid evidence.

    Additional unsupported anonymous accusations do not add to the perceived veracity of the first.

    Vague references to a claim by one named individual about a different incident may be pertinent, but need more detail.  When, where, with whom, other witnesses, context, etc.

    Whether or not PZ Myers made it up is not the issue.  Applying skeptical values and tools to claims that could destroy a person's life are.
     
    Quote

    Now why would a rape victim want to be anonymous? Could it be for reasons such as their account is likely to be dismissed as rumour or gossip?

    It's more likely to be considered such if the purported victim refuses to provide any additional evidence.

     
    Quote
    You know what it is that makes people very aware of the potential harm to an accused male but utterly blind to the great harm done to rape victims who are not believed? Privilege.

    The suggestion that I am blind to the harm done to rape victims is unwarranted and grossly offensive.  It is also a blatant attempt to shut down discussion (rather like the use of "privilege" as an epithet).  You are assuming that there is a victim without evidence.

    So answer me a question:  What makes people willing to believe unsubstantiated anonymous claims while ignoring the potential harm those claims can cause?

    Date: 2013/08/31 10:02:04, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Driver @ Aug. 30 2013,16:47)
    It is only invalid if you believe that it is likely that PZ Myers made it up or that the woman is lying.

    Those are not the only two possibilities.  The core point is that anonymous, unsubstantiated claims should not be unskeptically accepted as evidence.

    I do not grant PZ Myers, or anyone else, unquestioning trust.

     
    Quote

    I think I mentioned how much respect I have for arguments that rely on law, so I hope you are not doing that.


    I agree with you that law and morality are often unrelated.  I do, however, support the principle that people should have the right to face their accusers.  Without that, everyone is at risk of being the victim of career and life destroying anonymous accusations.  The principle of innocent until proven guilty protects everyone.

    That's not to say that victims of crimes should not be protected from abuse for coming forward, of course.

     
    Quote

     
    Quote

    The suggestion that I am blind to the harm done to rape victims is unwarranted and grossly offensive.  It is also a blatant attempt to shut down discussion (rather like the use of "privilege" as an epithet).  You are assuming that there is a victim without evidence.


    Either

    a) You are blind to the harm done to rape victims who are not believed.
    b) Your implicit thought process is that "the trauma caused to 22-24 rape victims who are not believed is outweighed by the potential harm to 1 wrongly accused man."
    c) You believe, despite the evidence linked to in this thread, that false rape allegations are higher than 6-10%.
    d) Your skepticism is such that prior probabilities have no meaning to you.

    Take your pick. None of it is good.


    Do you self-identify as a skeptic?  Are you familiar with the fallacy of the excluded middle (more accurately, the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, in this case)?

    My answer is e) None of the above.  I've made my position clear previously, in these two sentences:

    As a husband of a wife I adore and the father of daughters I would do anything to protect, I strongly empathize with the desire to do anything possible to prevent sexual assault.

    As a person who values his reputation, I do not want to live under a legal system that would allow that reputation to be destroyed based on anonymous hearsay and unfounded accusations.

    On a more general note, I find your rhetorical approach very similar to that used by other proponents of PZ's unevidenced claims.  Whether deliberate or not, the technique is sadly disingenuous.  The pattern is to use the very real horrors of rape and the serious problems rape victims face when seeking justice to attempt to distract from the fact that in this specific instance there is nothing resembling sufficient evidence for the defamatory claims being made.  Rather than considering the facts of the particular case, the intent is to inflame emotions.  Anyone who discusses the actual evidence without assuming the guilt of the target is accused of not caring about the problem of rape.

    That is not just irrational, it is intellectually dishonest.

    Instead of playing those kinds of games, how about providing real evidence for your claim that the accused has left "22-24 rape victims" in his wake.  The number seems to grow with every telling.

    Date: 2013/08/31 10:11:53, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Hotshoe,

    Your interpretation of the law is at odds with what I've learned.  In particular, I don't believe you will find a case that protects defamatory claims about sexual assault just because they are made against a public figure.  If Myers had said that his target was an unskeptical, irrational, poor writer and speaker, that would probably be covered.

    In any case, we'll all have to wait to see how this plays out.  My hope is for one of two clear resolutions.  Either Myers proves his claim and a sexual predator gets locked up or Myers is forced to retract his claim and apologize plus pay enough to discourage others from making such defamatory statements without proof.  Unfortunately, I suspect the result will be muddier.

    Date: 2013/09/22 17:38:50, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Kantian Naturalist @ Sep. 22 2013,18:24)
    Uncommon Descent

    Gordon once again transforms a perfectly good scientific theory into utter bullshit, then shouts "gotcha!" when someone says, "that's bullshit!"

    I am still, after all this time, utterly amazed (and a little bit impressed) there are people who are so completely and totally unable to comprehend what evolutionary theory does and does not consist of.

    I am still, after all this time, utterly amazed (and a little bit impressed) there are people who try to carry on a discussion with Kairosfocus.

    Date: 2013/09/26 08:18:03, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 26 2013,08:08)
    KF has lost it:

    https://docs.google.com/file.......preview

    So he reads TSZ in detail, but lacks the minimal intellectual courage to stop hiding behind Barry's skirts and participate there.

    Color me unimpressed.

    Date: 2013/09/29 15:23:46, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ Sep. 29 2013,05:22)
    Finally Casey Luskin got it right!



    News is all excited about a post he has up at Salvo:
     
    Quote
    Humans descended from ape-like creatures? A skeptical look at the fossil record


    ... and it was a wise decision to forget about those pesky genetics after the disaster with "Science And Human Origins".

    Photoshop of the week!

    Date: 2013/10/01 17:08:42, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 01 2013,17:31)
    Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 01 2013,14:58)
    Is there a bigger crybaby on the 'net than KirosFocus?

    He'll be in next year's "Guinness book of records" for 'longest sustained butthurt'.

    Other Winning Guinness Categories for Mr. Gordon E Mullings of Montserrat:

    Biggest Blowhard In The Blogosphere Universe.

    Maybe we can all throw in a Favorite Record For Mr. Gordon E Mullings!  If we can just avoid throwing up while throwing in...

    Now, now, if you just heard how intelligent and insightful he sounds inside his own head, you'd give him all that respect he is so sure he deserves.

    Date: 2013/10/01 19:04:35, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Kantian Naturalist @ Oct. 01 2013,19:37)
    Quote
    UD has been around for over eight years now. If their President, Barry Arrington, has to post a thread titled Please Take the Time to Understand Our Arguments Before You Attack Them after so many years you would think maybe they should question their own communication skills rather than the misunderstandings of others.


    Yeah, that's in response to a criticism I raised.  He objected to how I framed the ID argument as an argument from analogy.  I still don't see how it isn't.

    It's only like an argument from analogy.

    Date: 2013/10/02 12:42:04, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Learned Hand @ Oct. 02 2013,00:21)
    Speaking of which, whatever happened to Joe? Seems like a dog's age since I've seen a dozen "You don't have any evidence that anything even replicates" comments jammed into someone else's discussion.

    I've got a Markov text generator that I could let you have cheap if you're missing Joe that much.  You may need to pipe the output through something that can reduce the reading level to really match him, though.

    Date: 2013/10/04 12:49:18, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 04 2013,13:28)
    Barry his just banned Lizzie:

     
    Quote
    Barry ArringtonOctober 4, 2013 at 11:26 am
    Elizabeth Liddle doubles down yet again. She is not longer with us.


    full thread:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....dacious

    Barry is an intellectual coward -- a bitch who wishes he could be a bully.

    That being said, and with all due respect to Lizzie's demonstrably considerable intellect, what the hell did she expect?  Intelligent design creationists do not want rational discussion.  They are not interested in putting their "theories" to any sort of test.  They certainly don't want some uppity woman making them look bad.

    Insofar as they pose a political threat, they require attention.  They have not earned it for any other reason.  I hope this demonstrates to everyone in the reality-based community that UD does not deserve their participation.

    Date: 2013/10/04 15:35:51, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 04 2013,14:36)
    After Barry Assholeton bans Lizzie, Mapou visits his alternate reality world:

     
    Quote
    Mapou:  Personally, I would have banned her a long time ago, along with some others. We should start giving these people a taste of their own medicine. Just ban the hell out of them. Sorry for the outburst. Telling it like I see it, as always.


    Taste of their own medicine??? AFAIK the only IDiot ever banned anywhere was Joe Gallien at TSZ and that was because he posted a link to porn, not for his ID views.

    There has to be some sort of mad cow disease running rampant over at UD.

    Joe claims it wasn't porn because he didn't find it sexually stimulating.

    Backing slowly away from the risk of mental images of Joe's fantasies, I will note that what he posted is more correctly categorized as explicit and NSFW.

    Date: 2013/10/05 08:10:26, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Cubist @ Oct. 04 2013,18:23)
    Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 04 2013,16:08)
    Quote (steve_h @ Oct. 04 2013,13:58)
     
    Quote (Patrick @ Oct. 04 2013,19:49)
    Barry is an intellectual coward -- a bitch who wishes he could be a bully.

    Well there is that. But I wonder if this is also an attempt to end a never-ending stream of anti-Lizzie rants and pleas for her to be silenced in every single bloody post no matter what the subject -  and very likely, behind the scenes, in endless emails too.   By the guy who invites people into his living room asks them to politely answer his questions and then drowns out everything they say by constant parenthesized interruptions delivered through his megaphone and a 10,000 watt echo unit p.a. system.

    If that's the case, Patrick's right and Barry's a coward.  If Barry is fed up of the never-ending stream of anti-Lizzie rants and pleas for her to be silenced, the obvious solution is to ask for the source of those rants to stop.

    All is explained by tribalism. To Barry, Dr. Febble is Them; the people who are complaining about her, contrariwise, are very much Us. When push comes to shove, Barry will side with Us over Them, regardless of any other considerations.

    That's it in a nutshell.

    The fact that Barry chooses to align with Kairosfocus rather than Elizabeth Liddle shows that he suffers from extremely poor judgement and bad taste in addition to his intellectual cowardice.

    Date: 2013/10/05 08:12:39, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (didymos @ Oct. 05 2013,07:00)
    Gordon quoted out of context, because part of me is still 12 years old:

     
    Quote
    NCSE et al, I am fingering you.

    Date: 2013/10/05 17:46:06, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Kantian Naturalist @ Oct. 05 2013,14:27)
    Quote
    I haven't the stomach to actually investigate the matter but I was under the impression the only activity at UD was generated by Elizabeth's presence.

    As such I'm hoping she isn't tempted back - I want to see the place dry up and the inmates eat themselves. Are any CBEBs still mining the TARD these days?


    Apparently Barry's been using my comments as fodder for posts lately.   Not too sure why.  I guess he just likes me!  

    So, hive-mind, should I stop posting there and see what happens to the inmates?

    FWIW, I agree with Woodbine.  Starve UD of input from the reality-based community and watch it implode.  I'll make the popcorn.

    Date: 2013/10/08 13:08:31, Link
    Author: Patrick
    Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 08 2013,13:19)
    Quote (REC @ Oct. 08 2013,10:39)
    Quote (Ptaylor @ Oct. 07 2013,17:17)
    Two more sane people exit UD, one of his own volition, the other - not:
       
    Quote
    Alan Fox October 7, 2013 at 3:58 pm
    Just to add to the retreat, I hear that commenter, Jerad, has been banned at Uncommon Descent. I think I too will retreat and leave you guys (not many women -why is that?) to your own devices. Call me when that ID theory coalesces.

    UD link
    (Cross posting to the BlogCzar years